Talk:Orgasm/Archive 3

Brody and Reich on vaginal orgasm

I've been wary of including Brody in this article for some time, even though I'd already included two his studies before Gulpen included another one. The reasons I've been wary of including Brody is because he clearly has a pro-vaginal orgasm slant to his research and his research isn't supported by scholars with regard to female orgasm. Brody's research suggests that women's vaginal orgasm consistency is associated with being told in childhood or adolescence that the vagina is the important zone for inducing female orgasm. His research also claims that vaginal orgasm is more prevalent among women with a prominent tubercle of the upper lip. If you look at the source for the study in the Tubercle of the upper lip article, you will see that an editor questions whether or not Brody is a reliable medical source. Brody's research, as shown by Gulpen's addition, additionally supports Freud's theory that there is a link between the inability to have a vaginal orgasm and psychosexual immaturity, even though this view has been discredited by every modern-day scholar outside of Brody's team with regard to female orgasm. Similarly, Wilhelm Reich, another addition added to the article by Gulpen, says that the lack of women's capacity to have a vaginal orgasm is an artifact of our culture. This is where I have to point out that psychological/social factors are not something that most scholars believe to be the main reason for a woman's inability to have a vaginal orgasm. Having studied the structures of the clitoris and the vagina, they know that it is mostly due to anatomy. The vagina has few nerve endings, while the clitoris has a vast number of them (this is because the clitoris and the penis are homologous). Brody's research is WP:FRINGE, and Reich's view is WP:FRINGE and is not something that is supported by any research.

This is why I question whether or not these texts should remain in the article. For now, I moved them from where Gulpen had them placed because they shouldn't be that high up. The section should start off going over how human female orgasms are typically defined, what was originally thought of them, what we know now, and then go into debates, other research and theories. Flyer22 (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy you touched upon these issues. This topic is very dear to me and I am thinking in particular of all the children reading these articles, insecure about their sexuality and probably quite confused after they finish reading the Orgasm article. I find it extremely important to be accurate here.

In all honesty I was also a bit skeptical about Brody as a source, for the reasons you mentioned. However, I'm less skeptical when I see the variety in his work (http://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=awJN25sAAAAJ&oi=sra). If biological evidence clearly rules out the possibility of a vaginal orgasm, then Brody and Reich's views on this subject may be mistaken. However, there is much disagreement, not agreement about the biological possibility, and many women report their ability to have one. As Brody's work is being published in scientific journals I would object to just removing his findings. Rather I argue in favour of including his views, but adding any classifications other authors make about his work (I'd like to see references on this).

Regarding Reich, I have quite some objections to calling his work WP:FRINGE. Even though his work is not generally accepted that does not imply that it is wrong. I would be very happy to see a reference to any falsification of his work and experiments, because the independent reproduction I know of have only verified his work. His work is unknown, not falsified. Moreover, if any aspect of his work would be considered controversial, this would more likely apply to his later work related to physics. Many of his theories about and research into sexuality were developed by him while he was a highly respected psychiatrist. Until proven false, I think that Reich's work has a valid place in this article. After all, his research did support his claims.

Although much research questions the existence of the vaginal orgasm, most of this does not disprove Reich's work, because they take for granted what Reich did not. Asking how many women can have a vaginal orgasm, as did Alfred Kinsey and then using that result to question its existence misses the point altogether. What Brody's findings about psychosexual immaturity (and I found another related one here http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00926230701385548) show is exactly what Reich had claimed for several decades: that most adults are pshychosexually inhibited. For Freud, sexuality should be adapted to our culture, but Reich vehemently opposed this and noted (in the 1920s) that social institutions and culture (marriage, 'sexual morality', etc.) inhibit our natural sexual functioning. With that he basically predicted the sexual revolution of the 50s and 60s (though I suspect he would see that development as a movement to the opposite extreme, not a solution). Even today, apparently, our culture still suppresses children's sexuality to such a great extent that most adults are incapable of having normal orgasms (in women this often results in inability, in men this often results in premature ejaculation) preventing both from achieving full gratification (which explains e.g. the enormity of the porn industry, because people are always looking for gratification, but they can't find it).

I think that Reich's view on, for example, the vaginal orgasm cannot be understood separate from his general theories about sexuality. I would be very happy to write a section about that and thus better explain his views on the vaginal orgasm. I'm inclined to say that his theories are coherent and sound, but I would be happy if someone else would also judge the worth of his work. In relation to this I can recommend the last chapter of his "Children of the Future" and the first few chapters of his "Selected Writings".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulpen (talk • contribs) 11:19, 17 May 2012

On matters such as this, WP:MEDRS applies. In a nutshell, "Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." This means that we should only present well-received and well established information as mainstream fact. In every field there are individual papers and books written by people who challenge the mainstream, and of course they have their adherents. In order to separate the established facts from the fringe, we rely on third-party verification by systematic reviews, university-level textbooks and suchlike. Wikipedia is not here to publicise individuals who have their own theories, but to disseminate established knowledge. We don't need long explanations of right and wrong based on an individual's views here, but links to the WP:MEDRS sources that we can use in the article. --Nigelj (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Gulpen, yes, there are women who can have a vaginal orgasm. I'm not disputing that. Neither are most researchers, but those same researchers report that most women cannot have a vaginal orgasm (due to the reason I cited above about nerve endings), and that women who experience them are not experiencing them independent of the clitoris. Research now shows that clitoral tissue extends far into the vulva and the vagina. So the debate is not so much about whether or not vaginal orgasms are possible; it's more about whether or not they are independent of the clitoris. It's more about whether it's accurate to call them vaginal orgasms, since they are also most likely clitoral orgasms (but a different sensation of clitoral orgasm). I called Reich's views fringe because they fit the fringe criteria that is gone over in the WP:FRINGE guideline. I don't mind Brody or Reich's work being included in this article as long as they are given due weight, per WP:UNDUE. Their research/views shouldn't be given prominence, which, as I stated, is one reason I moved them further down in the section from where you had them placed. Nigelj explained the issue with including them quite well. I divided the section in a way that not only makes the section easier to navigate through, but gives more appropriate weight to Brody and Reich's work. This is not to say that I believe that all other research/views on vaginal orgasm should be included in the Other factors and views section or that they should have their own sections. Again, Nigelj explained well on that point. Flyer22 (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I understand WP:MEDRS implies that Reich's work cannot be a main source (although he could be considered an expert in the field). With the way the sections are re-organised by Flyer22 this issue should largely be addressed now. (In general I'm happy with giving more structure to that section!) In response to whether the clitoris is involved in the vaginal orgasm, I am not sure if this would make much of a difference for Reich. I am not 100% sure about this, but I can imagine that his theory relates rather to the various psychological obstacles related to accepting, embracing and even scantly enjoying penile penetration, regardless of which particular stimulated area during intercourse would result in an orgasm. This would indeed imply a different definition of 'vaginal orgasm' used by Reich than by the others. As you can see from this example, the nuances in Reich's theories are incredibly important for a good understanding of his work. I really still feel his theory needs a little bit more elaboration, including in that section, to not misunderstand its meaning. Moreover, I see Reich is currently shortly mentioned in the Dysfunction and satisfaction section. I'd be happy to extend that into a paragraph, for example. Would the location there addresses the issues discussed above? Gulpen (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're pleased with my changes. I don't mind you elaborating on Reich's views in the Other factors and views section, as long as you don't add too much. Again, we shouldn't be giving his views too much weight. Because of this, I don't believe that more about Reich's views should be mentioned in the Dysfunction and satisfaction section; that section should mostly consist of facts and peer-reviewed studies. The In females section, though consisting of debate in addition to facts, is mostly about prominent studies, replicated studies, peer-reviewed studies, and what researchers make of the whole clitoral vs. vaginal orgasm topic. So as long as we keep WP:UNDUE in mind, things should be fine on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This is just to note that I hope I satisfied all parties by writing a dedicated page on Reich's views on sexuality (health, rather): orgastic potency. That makes it easier to keep WP:UNDUE in mind here, because only a referral is needed now - which I added. Also, just in case anyone ever reads this, my earlier explanation of Reich's view on the vaginal orgasm was quite inaccurate and partially wrong. A better explanation can be found on the before-mentioned page now.--Gulpen (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Links and foot notes

"Functional MRI of the brain during orgasm in women" (entry #12) only takes you to a generic Rutgers Psychology page - not this actual pdf. I did find a copy of it here - http://www.scribd.com/doc/302148/Functional-MRI-of-the-Brain-During-Orgasm-In-Women — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.4.210 (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I traded out the link. Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The theoretical biological and evolutionary functions section

This discussion has been transferred from User talk:Antialias#Orgasm article in order to help reach WP:Consensus on this matter. It goes as follows:

Hello, Antialias. I had to revert you on this because it's not just feminist theories that are in that section. And describing them as "popular" is WP:Original research. Further, the section is also about the male function of orgasm, so removing the "Male function" heading was improper. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no information about the male function of orgasm in that section; it is an argument on why the female orgasm is more difficult to achieve. Antialias (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It is also about the male role -- the male function in relation to reproductive success. And the function of the male orgasm in relation to reproductive success is not all fact. Some of the beliefs about it are theory. And keep in mind that the Male function section, like the Female function section, can be expanded. I'll make a point of expanding it at a later date. All of that is why it's best not to merge it with the Female function section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And moving the material the way you did, as shown in this revert by me, is inappropriate. Not only are the reasons that women have difficulty reaching orgasm, in general or compared to men's, already covered in the In females section, as well as the Dysfunction and satisfaction section, what you moved higher as a subsection of the Achieving orgasm section are mostly theories. Not facts. And they are theories relating to evolutionary reasons for orgasm, which is why they belong where they are. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The section is primarily about the relative difficulty of reaching female orgasm. You are obviously a smart person and far more well-read in pan-gender sexual studies than I, but to call this section of contention the "male function" of orgasm makes you look like a damn fool. Since as you state, the section is mostly devoid of fact, I would settle for removing the section entirely. Antialias (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I've already explained what the section is about, and that the relative difficulty of reaching female orgasm is already covered elsewhere. And the reason we don't remove the section altogether is because theories on orgasm are allowed in the Orgasm article. It's not like some other parts of the article don't also propose theories, or rather hypotheses. But this section is specifically about theories in relation to biological/evolutionary reasons for orgasm, mostly with regard to the reproductive process. And it quite clearly doesn't only relate to female orgasm.

I am not sure why the section heading bothers you so much that you have deviated from your typical sporadic editing pattern. But since you do not agree with me about what not to do with this section, I am taking this matter to the talk page. You should discuss it there without reverting again, as the point of doing so is to reach WP:Consensus and to avoid WP:Edit warring such as this. As part of the WP:BRD process, you should have taken this matter to the talk page once you were reverted and it was explained to you why you were reverted. But I recognize that you are not as familiar with Wikipedia ways as I am, and that maybe I should have proposed an alternate title or other formatting to you so that we can reach a compromise. I still am willing to compromise with you on this. One compromise I already proposed is that I will expand the Male function section with more information about male orgasm. But it is difficult to add theories about the reproductive purpose of male orgasm without talking about females as well. And vice versa. Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: As a quick-fix compromise, I took away the Male function and Female function subheadings for the time being. Flyer22 (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the word "orgasm" being added to the heading was unneeded because, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings, "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer." Specification isn't needed in that case because it's clear that the section is about orgasms. Flyer22 (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

U-spot, A-spot, Deep spot and cervical orgasms?

I've read about these concepts in several webpages, but haven't found a single verified source which proved scientifically the existence of these types of orgasms (neither in Wikipedia nor in other webs). All the information seems to be copy-paste and without references, and I couldn't find the original source of all that information. Maybe it would be useful to include here a section with references for these concepts, to clarify them and expose the current state of investigation.

Ah! As a side note, nipple orgasms shouldn't be described as exclusively female orgasms. There's plenty of testimonial evidence about men achieving them regularly. I know that personal testimonies aren't as trustworthy as actual studies, but in this case, it's safe to assume that those men weren't self-deluding themselves. It's not as if nipple stimulation could have been confused with indirect stimulation of genitals, or something. There's also no reason for female nipples triggering orgasm, and not male ones, since they're the same. I've read also testimonies about orgasms triggered by testicle stimulation alone, just not so many. 87.216.119.208 (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Hello, IP. Welcome to Wikipedia. With the exception of mentioning in a single line, in the In females section, that Beverly Whipple and Komisaruk proposed cervix stimulation as inducing an orgasm, we don't mention "U-spot, A-spot, Deep spot and cervical orgasms" in this article because, as you know, there is no research supporting them, which makes them WP:FRINGE, and they aren't even that distinguished from each other. We shouldn't have a section or sections in this article discussing these concepts when they can't even be backed to a single source that passes WP:MEDRS. There is an A-spot Wikipedia article that will likely be deleted one of these days; it's titled Anterior fornix erogenous zone, but, like I stated in this link, "The topic is definitely non-notable, per what is stated here. Peer-reviewed journals are what count on topics like these, and I don't know if the Journal of the British Association for Sexual and Marital Therapy is a peer-reviewed journal. And in any case, it's just one medical journal and one book that looks to be a popular press book. This is in stark contrast to the sources found in the G-Spot article and elsewhere off Wikipedia about the G-Spot, and it's also debated. However, I wouldn't call the A-Spot 'debated.' It's simply not mentioned in most scholarly sources, if any at all besides the one medical journal included in its article (I'm obviously not counting the book). The most you'll find about this topic is what is stated on unreliable sex sites and in sex guides spreading information about erogenous zones that aren't even supported by research or at least valid research."

As for "nipple orgasms" (which are actually genital orgasms, since the orgasm doesn't happen in the nipples, at least not when considering the clinically accepted definition of orgasm), we only mention women being able to achieve them because that's what the reliable sources on them say. If there were any reliable sources stating that nipple stimulation can trigger male orgasm, I'd have no problem adding that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm also sure that this IP is you. All the edits you made were good, except for the one you made to the Nipple article (per above). Flyer22 (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Men can achieve nipple orgasms (as I can attest to). I don't know what references there are, but there surely has to be some out there (and I would prefer not to become a reference by getting the local medical college to set up functional MRI.) It can release fluids, but as best as I'm aware, it cannot be achieved as an ejaculatory orgasm, unless simultaneously accompanied by stimulation on the prostate area or genitals. We also need more references on the so-called "psychological orgasm". I know there are studies out there somewhere by Masters and Johnson showing that one can achieve orgasms by thought alone (as I can). I think they also have estimates on the population ratio, somewhere around 1 million to 1. However, I don't know if males can bring about ejaculatory orgasm this way, other than in dream sleep, just non-ejaculatory, and I don't recall any references making that distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.165.168 (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. As mentioned above, we can't state that men can have "nipple orgasms" without reliable sources stating such. And by "reliable sources," I mean ones that pass WP:MEDRS (linked above), not sex guides and books of that nature unless written by a sexologist containing valid research findings. I will look for reliable sources on this at a later date, but there clearly aren't many reliable sources on "nipple orgasms" and may not be any on men. There aren't many on "psychological orgasms" -- as in orgasms that are achieved by thought alone. Flyer22 (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 July 2012

Please change URL arlindo-correia.com to arlindo-correia.org. July 18, 2012. Arlindo Correia

Arlindo Correia (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It was changed to this by another editor, per what is stated in that edit summary. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Marking the request answered. RudolfRed (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Female orgasm vs. male - duration.

Can someone please verify the sources for the statement that female orgasms are generally much longer than male? The four links are all either broken or do not seem to address the duration question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.178.60 (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw your question hours earlier, but have only recently found good time to reply to it. I went to Internet Archive for two of the sources. The UCSB SexInfo Online source states, "Women can have a slightly longer orgasm than men." The The Times source states, "As orgasm lasts much longer in women than in men..." The Spencer A. Rathus source is a book source without a url link to verify its text. And the other source (Levine) is a peer-reviewed journal source that I don't currently have full access to. Per these factors, I changed the line in question to "A woman's orgasm may last slightly longer or much longer than a man's."[1][2] The Times Online source by itself is not good enough to support the statement that "[a] typical woman's orgasm lasts much longer than that of a man." Although the Levine source beside it (which states "Women's orgasms have been estimated to last, on average, approximately 20 seconds, and to consist of a series of muscular contractions in the pelvic area that includes the vagina, the uterus and the anus.") seems to support that. Flyer22 (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting question indeed! I just read one of Wilhelm Reich's earliest, 1922 articles "Coiton and the Sexes" (Zeitschrift fur Sexualwissenschaft 8) in which he critically looked at this topic. Some professor Urbach had measured the orgasm in males and females and found that men orgasm earlier than women, that women's orgasms last longer (horizontal plateau), and that fertilisation is more favourable if men ejaculate after women have had an orgasm. Thus, this professor Urbach reasoned, nature had destined for men to have a second orgasm! You can imagine Reich's response.. Anyway, if such views were framed in such shaky arguments, they are very likely dogmas rather than facts. So, to help clarify some of this, I include some quotes from Lavine et al. (1985).

• "Geer and Quartararo (1976) . . . the range of duration of orgasm was said to be from 7.5 to 25 seconds with a mean of 16.7 seconds. Our duration of orgasm from 26 subjects with a verbally specified initiation and cessation gave a mean of 19.9 seconds . . . with a range from 9.2 to 60 seconds. . . . Bohlen et al (1982a) . . . obtained a mean of 35.6 seconds . . . with a range of 7.4 to 107.6" (444-5) (All regarding the female orgasm)
• "Dickson (1949) mentioned that female orgasm lasted 12-15 seconds but was rarely greater than 20 seconds. Masters and Johnson (1966, p. 6) appear never to have measured the duration of the orgasm . . . Jobaris and Money (1976) claimed that studies (not quoted by them) revealed that for females a single orgastic episode has a duration of less than 10 seconds). McCarey (1978, p. 180) reported that the 'orgasmic phase is extremely short lasting from 3 to 10 seconds (sometimes longer in women).' These quotes from the literature indicate that the duration of female orgasm, while of variable length, is usually underrported. . . . It is clear from our results that asking women to assess the time of duration of their orgasms cannot yield reliable data about the actual duration" (445-6).

Yet I'm surprised they don't discuss a comparison of the length of the orgasm of men and women, of how these compare. Thus, the mystery is still not resolved. Anyway, I'm disappointed to see that they do not discuss any possible reasons for differences in the duration of the orgasm. Reich still seems ahead (at least conceptually).--Gulpen (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

By "Lavine et al," do you mean "Levine et al."? And by "I include some quotes from Lavine et al. (1985)," do you mean the statements you listed above are from some paper by this researcher? Flyer22 (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops - a typo; but you too! It's "Levin" :) Yes, I included quotes from the article you referred to but said you didn't have access to. Let me know if you'd like the full text.--Gulpen (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why I've kept calling "Levin" by the name "Levine," since I'm familiar with some of this particular researcher's work. I'll likely take you up on contacting you about full access to that source, but I'm currently busy with other matters on and off Wikipedia. That stated, I don't mind you sending me full access to it now; I can always go to that email later. Thanks in advance. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Wilhelm Reich and the Orgasm

Well, I thought I had resolved the position of Reich in this article, but the more I read about his concept, the more I feel his work deserves a little bit more elaboration here. This is so, partially because it does not do justice to put him merely in the clitoral vs vaginal debate, nor merely representing orgastic potency as the antithesis of neurosis. To explain why, please take a look at some concepts that I think are unique to his concept orgastic potency:

• Sexual maturity for the female NOT in terms of vaginal (vs clitoral), but in terms of orgastic potency (which is very very different. My position on this before seemed to have been slightly misinformed. Please see the newly added table on orgastic potency#Detailed_definition to see a good description of orgastic potency).
• In case of orgastic potency the sexual experience is exactly the same for men and women. That is, sexual maturity for both men and women is defined in exactly the same way.
• The orgasm (in orgastic potency) is interrelated with both psychological and somatic criteria. E.g.:

• there needs to be the ability to love and to relate to one's partner with one's personality (and, yes, absence of neurosis)
• there are involuntary, pleasurable contractions in the whole body.

• The orgasm as inseparable from the whole sexual experience, from foreplay to after-glow.
• Orgastic potency as inseparable from sociology, the question of culture and authoritarian upbringing.
• Please also note that the so central (in this article) human sexual response cycle was, it seems to me, already discovered and described in great detail much earlier by Reich (again see that table on orgastic potency). M&J published this in 1966. Reich died in 1957 - and he coined orgastic potency in 1924!

I do not know exactly what I'm proposing here, but I just would like to open a door to exchange thoughts. All these concepts are unique and should not be forgotten. The only relatively good source (that I found thus far) discussing some of this is David Boadella's (1985) Wilhelm Reich: The Evolution of His Work--Gulpen (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey again, Gulpen. I don't know what to state that I haven't already stated on this (as seen in Talk:Orgasm/Archive 3 and in our email exchanges). It's not called the Clitoral vs. vaginal orgasm section; it's the Clitoral and vaginal variabilities section, and Reich is not mentioned there. He's mentioned in the Other factors and views section and in the Dysfunction and satisfaction section. I do not believe that he should get a section all to himself, any more than any other researcher and/or theorist should, not unless they are researchers like Masters and Johnson. Not even if we title it Orgastic potency. If you want to expand on his views a bit more in the Dysfunction and satisfaction section, then make sure that it is just a bit more, per what we've already discussed. The other option is to add his views to the Theoretical biological and evolutionary functions section and elaborate on them a little there. And since his views are only theories, that is the better place for his views to begin with. As for the human sexual response cycle, whatever human sexual response cycle Reich defined, it was/is not what Masters and Johnson defined; that is their definition and they get the credit for that. Flyer22 (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Flyer :), regardless of the category you placed it in, I myself framed the discussion of Reich in the clitoral-vs-vaginal debate! There is presently a discussion about the status of orgastic potency which I want to see resolved first before making concrete proposals here. But I want to shortly point out that Reich's work is not "just a theory". I really think you would find that book quoted an interesting read, by the way! (earlier articles I sent must have given a very poor impression indeed, in hindsight). But either way, thank you for opening some room and suggesting ways in which this could be framed. One other option I was thinking of is a section "Orgasm in psychoanalysis," which could, among others, include what is presently written regarding Freud's theories in the "In literature" section, and the research described directly above Wilhelm Reich in the "Other factors and views" section. --Gulpen (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, Guplen. And, if you remember, it was months ago that I stated that I didn't mind you expanding on Reich's beliefs concerning this topic in the "Other factors and views" section. But you declined, feeling that what was (and still is) there is sufficient; I suppose a big part of that is because you'd decided that you'd be creating the Orgastic potency article. I'm confused as to you stating that Reich's work is not just a theory, however. Yes, I've read what you stated in the link you provided above. But although Reich seemingly sometimes applied research before claiming anything, his beliefs were not proven as true or likely to be true. I can see how you or anyone else can describe them as somewhat proven to be true regarding the similar orgasm setup between "orgastic potency" and the human sexual response cycle, but not beyond that; therefore, Reich's views are still theories. And as you know, they are WP:Fringe theories (as has been stated here and at the Orgastic potency article) because they are not a part of the mainstream scientific view. As for Freud... When it comes to Freud's views on female orgasm, at least clitoral vs. vaginal stimulation, I don't feel that this information should be split away from the clitoral vs. vaginal orgasm text (the "Clitoral and vaginal variabilities" section, or whatever name it has in the future), because this distinction started with him. I also can't see a need for a section consisting mostly of theories, which is what I believe that an "Orgasm in psychoanalysis" section would consist of, when we already have the "Theoretical biological and evolutionary functions" section that is mostly full of theories; there is no good reason that I can see that some of Reich's views cannot be placed there with the other theories; if the title needs tweaking to add on a word to follow "biological" and "evolutionary," then so be it. But we must avoid WP:UNDUE in this article when it comes to Reich or any other non-mainstream theories. Statements that are mostly theories can and should all be covered in one section, and I don't yet see a need to split the "Theoretical biological and evolutionary functions" section up into subsections...since it is not that big and since all that Reich should be given in that section is a paragraph or two. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for reminding me of that. I am fully aware Reich's work is not mainstream, but please be cautious with making claims about whether Reich did or did not do serious research. Most people stating similar things (half claim he was disproven while the other half claims his work can't be (dis)proven as its unscientific) are not familiar with his original research (journal) publications, for example. Anyway, I see the Germans did dedicate a separate section to his theory.[3] This is probably related to the predominantly medical approach taken on the English wiki, while they seem to take a much more inclusive approach. What is the reason for the predominantly medical approach here, actually, as opposed to a historical, sociological, anthropological, cultural, psychological, etc?--Gulpen (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Gulpen, it is not about whether or not Reich did serious research; it is about, like I've stated, his beliefs being fringe theories. The Germans do things differently, as do a lot of other language Wikipedias. Maybe most. In some countries, parts of Wikipedia are censored. We don't follow what the other language Wikipedias/countries do. If we did, given how the English Wikipedia articles on the same topics are usually better expanded and sourced, our articles would suffer. Often, an article reaches WP:GA or WP:FA status here first, and then at the other language Wikipedias, often with some content being taken from here and translated there. The reason for the predominantly medical approach here has to do with how "orgasm" is defined being authoritatively predicated on what the health/medical community says, which includes the sexological community in this respect. Because of that, the article should mostly defer to WP:MEDRS when making statements about what an orgasm is/how it works/the anatomy that it involves. It is something that happens to the body that has more to do with biology/physiology than it does psychology. While the brain has a lot to do with orgasm, most people can't think themselves to orgasm, for example. Historical, sociological/cultural, anthropological, and psychological aspects are covered in this article, but with due weight. And more could/should certainly be added to this article about all of those other aspects, but theories about what orgasm is/how it works have to be given due weight with respect to the scientific consensus, especially if those theories are fringe. Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer here. It's not so much that orgasm is a medical thing, but that the article should reflect mainstream consensus. If current medical, psychological, sociological, historical (etc) scholarly sources agree that something to do with orgasm is mainstream and of widespread importance in our society, then this article should cover it, using their perspective. Maybe Reich's ideas had more effect, or went deeper or wider, in German society during his heyday than they did in most English-speaking countries? I don't know. But if mainstream writers (and what is taught in University courses isn't a bad gauge of this) don't include Reich's ideas in their work, we have to conclude that - in our society, at this moment in time - he is fringe. Unfortunately, however passionately someone may say, "But he shouldn't be fringe!", including any WP:UNDUE coverage on that basis alone would not be right. Of course, his work and its legacy do exist and so should be mentioned: it's all about due weight. --Nigelj (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The German Orgasm article is GA, and I'd looked at it before Gulpen brought it up, but, as mentioned, the German Wikipedia does things differently. Look at the referencing approach, for example. A lot of that looks unreferenced to me, unless the Literatur section is supposed to count as referencing the text that is not supported with an inline citation. I've always wondered what type of referencing system the other language Wikipedias use, considering that I've often noticed a difference compared to ours. I don't know what the umbrella German heading "Betrachtungswandel in der westlichen Welt" or what the subsection heading "Jahrhundert" mean, but they seem to have placed Reich into context; they have Freud, Reich, Kinsey, Masters and Johnson...and Shere Hite...all placed in order, with respect to what place in time each postulation or research undertaking occurred. Helen O'Connell is missing in that section, and apparently in the article as a whole, which is a significant omission...given her redefining research of the clitoris and how it acts during sexual stimulation/orgasm. I would state if their "Betrachtungswandel in der westlichen Welt" section doesn't make clear, either with the heading (that umbrella one or the Jahrhundert one) or text, that Freud's views on orgasm have been discredited and that both Freud and Reich's views on orgasm are fringe theories, then that is undue, but the article seems to make clear things that contrast Freud's or Reich's views. For example, in contrast to Freud's views about female orgasm, the German article, like this one, seems to make clear that 70-80% of women require direct clitoral stimulation to achieve orgasm. I'd already noticed that the German Wikipedia took some sources I used here and applied them there. I wouldn't mind Reich having a section all to himself in the "Theoretical biological and evolutionary functions" section of our English Wikipedia article (no matter if we alter its heading a bit...as long as the heading remains clear that it is mostly discussing theories)...if a subsection was needed for him in that section. Right now, the other researchers in that section don't have enough text to warrant their own subsections. So theirs should be expanded to accommodate that before Reich gets his own. Flyer22 (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I think Reich's views would be appropriate under a heading "Theoretical...". I can agree with most of what both of you stated, but I still want to point out the impression I get that the medical perspective may be too strongly emphasised in this article, in particular by Flyer, stating "The reason for the predominantly medical approach here has to do with how "orgasm" is defined being authoritatively predicated on what the health/medical community says, which includes the sexological community in this respect. Because of that, the article should mostly defer to WP:MEDRS when making statements about what an orgasm is/how it works/the anatomy that it involves. It is something that happens to the body that has more to do with biology/physiology than it does psychology." This argument is a very basic fallacy: the orgasm is a medical subject > according to the medical literature the orgasm is a medical subject > we require medical literature... Of course the orgasm is a medical subject, but is it really so simple to argue that the medical perspective is primary?

• How does orgasm come about in a wet dream? There is no physical stimulation, just pure fantasy, and yet an orgasm! Is that pure physiology?
• How would you explain women (particularly many women) describing themselves hitting a psycholigical 'wall' just before orgasm, that makes it impossible for them to orgasm, impossible to "let go", or the many associated (unconscious) fears? Is that pure physiology?
• Or how about regarding these women (and also men) who describe their ability to 'learn' to orgasm (overcoming that psychological 'wall') after several years, even though they were already fully sexually mature? Is this pure physiology?
• Or how about the aspect of 'shame' and 'guilt' and 'fear' and 'sin' instilled on the youths everywhere regarding sex (in particular regarding orgasm in masturbation) and how this influences their ability to (enjoy) orgasm - even in post-sexual revolution West, not to mention outside of the West. Is this pure physiology?
• Do you orgasm in front of your partner? Your friends? Your family? In public? In front of pure strangers? Could you? Don't you need psychological security? Why!!!? If it is pure physiological rubbing, then what does it matter where or in front of whom it takes place?

Physiology does not - nay, cannot explain these aspects, simply because it has a limited ontological/epistemological position! Now I'm not arguing that the psychology is more important than the medical, but I'm stating that this is simply a very complex question which is not easily answered. May I point out three different approaches one could take towards what is or what is not DUE in an encyclopedia regarding the orgasm?

• The medical perspective would be this (and is the present case): all psychology, sociology, history, etc. knowledge regarding the orgasm is simply superseded by medical/scientific knowledge. Thus, if somethinig is in conflict with it, that view is outdated and no longer relevant. Only, perhaps, as a side note.
• Historically speaking, the medical/scientific view of the orgasm is simply a view part of that particular historical period; ie. not whether something is medically 'true' but whether any view is notable in the thinking and experience of that period is the important criteria! This is where 'Jahrhundred' on the German orgasm wiki comes in, because it means 'century'.
• Or the anthropological/cultural: not what is medically true, but the MEANING that is socially associated with the orgasm, and the social norms of what is regarded as 'normal' or 'wanted' or 'sick' in relation to the orgasm (including the scientific perspective on this) are simply part of the culture of that particular society. This would entail a comprehensive intercultural survey of meaning associated with the orgasm.

Just sharing my thoughts here.--Gulpen (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to give it to you, Gulpen, you definitely make me think. But I'm not interested in getting into a big debate about this...especially since WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE are clear on how we should treat this topic. WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE have been pointed out to you not only by me and Nigel, but by several others elsewhere. I'm only going by Wikipedia policies and guidelines with regard to this article. I don't believe that what I stated above is "a very basic fallacy" at all. You do, and that's fine. We don't have to agree on everything. But my statement is supported by how things are done on Wikipedia and the general scientific community (and the scientific community includes sexologists and psychologists, of course). Even noting the psychological aspect of orgasm, which I did, I stand by my statement that orgasm has more to do with biology/physiology than it does psychology. As I've stated before, most people don't orgasm from psychological stimulation alone. While psychological stimulation usually causes sexual arousal, it usually takes physical stimulation of the genitals for a person to orgasm. Not to mention that most people, while usually becoming sexually aroused by psychological stimulation, can also become sexually aroused by just having their genitals caressed (by themselves or someone else) and that the orgasm is completely unrelated to psychological stimulation in a lot of those cases. And in many cases of rape, if any at all during physically forced or otherwise threat-coerced rapes, there is no psychological stimulation causing the victim to become sexually aroused and orgasm. The topic of orgasm is indeed mostly discussed from a biological/physiological standpoint, at least in modern times. I don't object to psychological aspects in this article; some psychological aspects are, of course, in this article already. I don't object to historical aspects in this article; some historical aspects are, of course, in this article already. I don't object to social feelings about orgasm being in this article; some of that is, of course, also already in this article, and I feel that there should be one big section about social views on orgasm. What I object to regarding this article is undue emphasis on minority and/or fringe views with regard to orgasm, especially when those views are talking about orgasm in a biological/medical sense rather than just a historical and/or social sense.

Really, this talk page is not the place to debate Wikipedia rules or discuss our personal thoughts about orgasm. So I welcome you to further discuss those aspects on my talk page or via email, if you want. Flyer22 (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: Slightly amended statement above. Flyer22 (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

I've divided the In females section into these subsections, getting rid of the Clitoral and vaginal variabilities subheading. I did this because the section is hefty and most of the material was under that one heading.

That said, now the article looks even more like the In males section needs expansion. It does either way of course, but there is also the fact that, as the article partially touches on in the In general section, the topic of female orgasm has been studied significantly more than the topic of male orgasm.

I also see that we should have a Psychological aspects section in this article, which is also where some material Gulpen wants to adds about Wilhelm Reich's research can be placed, but I'm not set on whether or not it should come before or immediately after the Medical aspects section. Not to mention, some psychological aspects also have to do with the biological/medical field. And since the Psychological aspects section would no doubt mostly be about achieving orgasm, including it will make me conflicted about the Achieving orgasm heading that is in the article to let readers know of the sections that are specifically about achieving orgasm; by that, I mean that I'll be wondering if I should do away with that heading, although I can't yet think of a better way to let readers know that certain sections are specifically about achieving orgasm. And placing the Psychological aspects section there as a subsection wouldn't be right because psychological aspects aren't only about achieving orgasm. Flyer22 (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: I switched two of the subsections for the In females section around, made some tweaks to it because of that, and also added a bit of information to it about multiple orgasms...combining that with the information that was already there about it (all seen in that link). Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Had to correct a reference mistake that I made during that swap. Flyer22 (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The day following my November 12 comment above, I considered that we should include medical and psychological information under what would be the newly-created heading titled Medical and psychological aspects, since they sometimes go hand in hand, as seen in what is currently called the Medical aspects section. We can obviously include any subheading that is necessary and encyclopedic to specifically address whatever medical or psychological aspect we are discussing under that section. I've also considered a Psychologists subheading as part of it, where we would place certain psychologists' research there. I'm not sure that creating subheadings specifically for whatever psychologist is a good idea, however, considering WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Flyer22 (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Duration of orgasm

The article states that male orgasm is on average shorter than the female orgasm, and this has been widely stated. However, I stumbled across this article, which cites numerous studies that not only were male and female orgasms similar in intensity, they both last 20-30 seconds, with some people having irregular contractions for 30-90 seconds. There are individual differences but no gender differences.

Do we put this in the article? This will contradict those book sources that state a woman's orgasm is longer.--RM (Be my friend) 19:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Really sorry I didn't see that discussion above, in retrospect I should have gone through the page before just jumping in and creating a new section. RM (Be my friend) 02:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: I'd contacted Reenem about this via email; I told him, "The duration of male orgasm vs. the duration of female orgasm is a tricky matter. Refer to the discussion that was already had about it on the talk page a little higher up from the section you started about it: #Female orgasm vs. male - duration.. I was a bit surprised that you didn't simply comment there instead of starting a new section about this. The best thing to do in this case is to mention how a woman's orgasm is usually reported as lasting longer (slightly or much longer) than a man's orgasm, but that studies -- older studies -- on this matter differ. Then to name those studies and what they state. It's better to [use more than the Psychology Today source], per WP:MEDRS. Book sources or journal sources going over that material are better to use and journal sources are always preferred except for when the journal source is the primary source instead of a secondary source. And it's not just book sources stating that a woman's orgasm usually lasts longer than a man's."

I also advised him to stop adding unsourced material to the article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Lede

I think the lede should include something about the health section, such as health benefits. Pass a Method talk 10:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The lead should also mention some information about the brain, such as the information you removed from the lead earlier this year. The only reason that I haven't yet added that material back, or something like it, is because it first needs to be expanded in the Brain section and the article as a whole currently needs more focus than the lead, and I knew that I'd eventually appropriately expand the lead once this article is better fixed up; that is still my plan. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

male bleeding from the penis after orgasm

I am a 54 year old male married to a 29 year old spouse, as of 07/03/2012. We have had a very active love life, but today I had an experience that never happened before to myself. At the time I was ejaculating I felt a sharp pain in my lower left side, this has happened before and was due to over use of a muscle. When I removed there was blood on the towel, of course I assumed my wife got her period, but blood was coming from my urethra. Six hours later blood was still discharging,as I urination First i saw a few drops of blood, the yellow pee. Is it possible that due to internal suction that some of her menstruation got into my system and this is what is happening? Can you tell me some of the other likely possibilities? Thank You, and hope you have information for me. Sincerely, Phil PHIL Witzell (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2013‎ PHIL Witzell (UTC)

Hello, Phil. I signed your user name for you. Wikipedia talk pages are not for general discussion, but are instead for discussing edits to the article. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not give medical advice. That said, given that I do have great knowledge of diseases and disorders that affect male or female genitalia, and since you do need help, I will state the following: Considering that you felt a sharp pain and then saw blood coming from your urethra, I feel that you should first ask your wife if she got her period. Whatever her answer, I feel that you should seek a doctor just to be sure. But if she says that she did not, seeking a doctor, especially an andrologist, is something that I definitely feel that you should do. If the pain and/or bleeding continues, you of course should seek a doctor regardless. Flyer22 (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

EEG changes during orgasm

Yesterday I added this section to the article. Russian authorities on sexology are virtually unanimous in pointing out that EEG changes during orgasm resemble those which are characteristic of petit mal and the late stage of a grand mal seizure. Judging from literature in English, there are a number of objections that can be raised against these findings. Some authors even proclaim that a search for specific EEG changes during orgasm is doomed to failure:

This is probably a barren field for EEG research. // Niedermeyer, Ernst; Silva, Fernando Lopes da (2012). "Polarity and Field Determination". Electroencephalography: Basic Principles, Clinical Applications, and Related Fields (5 ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 183. ISBN 9781469801759. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Does anybody know whether the results obtained by Mosovich & Tallafero have already been refuted? --SU ltd. (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, SU ltd. Yes, I'd seen your addition yesterday. That same day, I commented at WP:MED about the use of some of the sources you cite in Wikipedia articles in general. I'm definitely worried about your use of sources that are very old, per WP:MEDRS (though it's understandable when there hasn't been much scientific progress on a particular matter and when it's at least pointed out that the studies are old and/or when contrasting them with newer studies), and am additionally worried about your use of non-English sources, per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. The section I started for discussion about this is found in this link. Mind weighing in on it? Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, Flyer22! Thanks for bringing those remarks of yours to my attention. I’ve just answered there. But you’d better write this at my Talk Page. I submitted a question here, but you’re avoiding it. --SU ltd. (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Not avoiding it. It's just that I don't have an answer. Often, people will only answer if they know the answer. I'm certainly not familiar with Russian or Polish research. As for replying to you about the above, I'll reply in the discussion I started at WP:MED. Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I’ve started to observe that page. --SU ltd. (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: For the archive here at this talk page, here is a link to how that discussion went. Flyer22 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

typo

"Shakespeare himself was a knowledgeable of this idea" should be "Shakespeare himself was knowledgeable of this idea".98.28.166.53 (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed it. Flyer22 (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Male multiple orgasm

Shouldn't this section include something about prostate non-ejaculatory orgasms? I think those are the most common type, far more common than multiple ejaculations, and posibly attanaible for all men with practice, unlike the ejaculatory type. There are even devices designed to produce them, and lots of testimonies from men (for example in the Aneros forum and wiki) acknowledging their existence. I don't know if that is enough, since there are no clinical researches on the subject yet (I think), but maybe it would deserve a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.22.94.140 (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

We need reliable, scholarly sources for that information to be included. Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok I understand. But, in that case, shouldn't all references to the G-spot be removed as well? The article speaks at times of the G-spot as if it was a real, verified entity, when this is far from truth. In fact, the specific section about the G-spot shows precisely how dubious is its existence. But then we have sentences like this: "Direct stimulation of the clitoris, G-Spot, or both, during anal sex can help some women to enjoy the experience and reach orgasm". And this is taken from "The Ultimate Guide to Anal Sex for Women" by Tristan Taormino (according to Wikipedia: "feminist author, columnist, sex educator, activist, editor, speaker and pornographic film director"). How is that a reliable, scholarly source!? I can't understand why Wikipedia usually disregards personal testimonies from lots of persons, but then considers that something that a journalist says is a valid reference, just because it appeared in print form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.22.94.140 (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

IP, as you have acknowledged, this article makes it very clear that there is significant debate about the existence of the G-Spot. Some researchers believe that it exists; others, the majority, believe that it doesn't...at least not as a separate entity. This is also significantly covered in scholarly sources. So that is why all references to the G-Spot should not be removed from this article. The article speaks at times as if the G-Spot is real because some sources speak of it that way (it's not completely ruled out as being real), and because, once the debate about the G-Spot is acknowledged in the article, we shouldn't point out each time the G-Spot is mentioned thereafter that "the existence of this spot is heavily debated," and because most of the scientists who don't believe in the G-Spot do believe that it is an extension of the clitoris; so they believe that it exists, just not as a separate entity. As for the Tristan Taormino source, I'm not a fan of that source or sources like it. Sex guide sources should generally be avoided in a topic such as this, unless coming from scholars such as Beverly Whipple; The Orgasm Answer Guide book, which she helped write, is currently used in this article, for example. I will be replacing some sources in this article with better sources, and have been doing so bit by bit. Not all sources in this article need to be scholarly, but they should generally be WP:MEDRS-compliant; WP:MEDRS-compliant sources include medical/health websites, such as WebMD, in the criteria of acceptable sources. As for disregarding personal testimonies if they are not published in reliable sources, the WP:Reliable sources guideline that I linked to above in this section and the WP:Verifiability policy show why that is. Flyer22 (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I should have also mentioned to you that Tristan Taormino is considered by many people, including some sexologists, to be an expert on the topic of anal sex; so using her as a source for something that concerns anal sex is usually not dubious. Still, like I stated, using sex guide sources to source orgasm aspects (or for most topics regarding sexuality) should generally be avoided; they are often unreliable because they often go on popular belief about sexual topics, such as types of orgasms that are not supported by research or are barely supported by research and are therefore dubious, more than they go on actual science. Flyer22 (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Incongruent artwork

Frenzy of Exultations is a fine painting, but I don't really think it's appropriate to this article. I understand the desire to attempt to find some artistic expression for certain concepts that might not otherwise have an accompanying image, but this is entirely subjective; while the author who made this change might find the painting to be a perfectly apt representation of what orgasm is like, another person may have a completely separate notion. I think the picture should be removed and perhaps replaced with something more inclusive, perhaps a couple experiencing orgasm together.
∴Walkeraj 15:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

See the section immediately above this one, where I pointed to how the Frenzy of Exultations painting became the WP:Consensus lead image...and the past discussions which point out that it is difficult to depict an orgasm/a person having one. Like I stated in the 2012 discussion I linked to in the section immediately above this one, "[W]ell, '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."

While never feeling strongly one way or the other about the current lead image, my opinion on it has changed; also seen in the aforementioned 2012 discussion about the lead image, I stated, "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." And also, "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."

Nigelj stated, "Is the problem that we don't have a source for the statement '...depicts the orgasm' in the caption? I just remove[d] 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?"

Your post, Walkeraj, shows that people will still object to the image's use in this article. So now I more so support it being removed. But I would rather have no image as the lead image than a pornographic lead image of a real person or real people, when we have no idea if the image is depicting an orgasm or mutual orgasms. Not to mention, that like I stated above, WP:Offensive material should also be taken into account. And while male ejaculation usually accompanies male orgasm, and it can be stated that the male is usually experiencing an orgasm at that point, an ejaculation image is not a suitable main image for this article; neither is an ejaculation video. Flyer22 (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be sorry to see it go. I don't think everything in Wikipedia has to be trudgingly literal. Surely there is room for figurative or representational illustrations as well? On an article somewhere about alternative energy there was a photo of some wind turbines with cows in the foreground and people were up in arms that the cows didn't represent anything to do with alternative energy. Every picture doesn't have to be a detailed guide to exact facts in the article. --Nigelj (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Retain the paintings. Once we have assured that the article covers the technical part of the topic, there is certainly room for a more romantic view, as represented by the paintings. I say, add whatever paintings give a sense of the romantic side of this natural physical process. Paintings are perhaps the best way to do this (although we should also add an audio clip of Ravel's Bolero). There are aspects to orgasm other than physiology; these additional aspects are every bit as deserving of coverage in the article. David Spector (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, the picture must be removed.Night Rain 5 (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

WP is not censored

Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED. I added the photos to this article. If you want to get a sense of what is deemed appropriate in Wikipedia, go to vulva, which illustrates MANY vulvas.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Without at this stage commenting on the appropriateness of the images, I'd point out that Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED isn't in itself an argument for including anything. You should also read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If the addition of the images is disputed, it would help if you could give specific reasons why you think they are needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, Andy. I removed BeyondZebrax's hidden note (which is pretty much the same as what OnBeyondZebrax stated above) because, like I stated in that edit summary, "that is not how we determine what are appropriate images to add to an article; I don't much mind the images [OnBeyondZebrax] added, but [he or she] should also see Wikipedia:Offensive material." This is some of what Wikipedia:Offensive material states, OnBeyondZebrax: "Wikipedia is not censored. However, words and images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available."

So while I don't much mind the images you added,[4][5][6][7] it can be argued that their being removed would not make the article less informative, relevant, or accurate. Personally, I can understand how the sexual arousal images make the article more informative, but not this painting image. That stated, the lead's image, which is also obviously a painting, does not make the article more informative either. But it has remained the WP:Consensus image; see the most recent discussion about it for why that is. We have not tried to censor images in this article. Like that discussion shows, this article has been lacking in images because it is difficult to depict an orgasm/a person having one. Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I took my cue from the lede painting to add in the other painting. While it is difficult to depict a person having an orgasm, at least you can show the sexual arousal stage which precedes orgasm. As far as citing other articles for precedent, it seems a reasonable method of gauging what the Wikipedia community determines is appropriate for sex-related articles. For example, if the vulva article had ZERO photos, it would undermine my claim for adding in the sexual arousal and sexual arousal stages here. I have to admit, I was frankly surprised at the large number of pictures in the vulva article. It could be argued they have gone beyond what is necessary from an encyclopedia point of view. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I went to the Other stuff exists section, and most of it is about article creation and AfDs. There was a section at the end, though, which appears to support the citing of precedent of content in other Wikipedia articles:

Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "Other Stuff Exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology. [bold emphasis added by me]OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I commented at OnBeyondZebrax's talk page about this discussion (and other matters) to let him or her know that replies had been left here about the aforementioned image additions. And OnBeyondZebrax commented on my talk page before commenting here.

OnBeyondZebrax, while the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS essay page, in its current format, mostly covers the creation and deletion of articles, and can be a valid argument, my point (and clearly one of Andy's points) is what the top of that page states: "In various discussions regarding a wide variety of articles, templates, etc., editors will inevitably point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid. The invalid comparisons are generally so painfully invalid that there has been a backlash against the 'other stuff exists' type of rationale."

When it comes to adding images that may offend, Wikipedia:Offensive material also matters. So does WP:CONSENSUS (consensus from those involved with the article that it's fine to include the images in the article and/or that the article is better off with the images included).

As for the Vulva article, yes, as seen on that article's talk page, and in its talk page archives, some readers and/or editors think that too many images of vulvas exist in that article; however, a lot, maybe most, of the objections are coming from people who find the images offensive or believe that they give the article a porn/dirty-feeling (especially due to what they feel is the excessiveness of the images). Flyer22 (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Another thing: This article (Orgasm) shouldn't become filled with images about sexual arousal or random erotic images. We have the Sexual arousal and Human sexual response cycle articles for depicting sexual arousal, though there is already a before-and-after picture for the topic of female sexual arousal and a before-and-after picture for the topic of male sexual arousal in the former article. And random erotic images are not needed at all to help readers understand the topic of orgasm. Most of the times, from what I have seen, erotic images, especially real-life ones, even those that are meant to be educational, distract our readers from the article's text; this is why we get so many complaints about such images on the article talk pages from our readers and/or editors. Flyer22 (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Image discussion - break

Regarding the recently-added composite File:Male genital anatomy - male sexual response cycle (Sexueller Reaktionszyklus beim Mann)-b.jpg: Visually, I cannot detect any significant, informative differences of an encyclopedic standard between the state of the penis in images B-C-D-E, and A-F. If there are any differences, they need to be highlighted and labeled clearly, because they are not obvious. The article already has an image of an erect penis. As this composite does not provide unique encyclopedic value to the article, and is surely WP:OR, I suggest that it be removed per WP:GRATUITOUS. The one thing that this composite has in it that is not already covered by other images in the article is the image of ejaculation, and because that image E is cropped, it's not a very useful illustration of it. Surely Wikipedia has better ejaculation images that could replace this composite. Zad68 17:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with Zad. See this discussion at Talk:Human penis which led Zad to create this subsection discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I do see that, unlike the Human penis article, there isn't yet an image of a flaccid penis in this article (other than the image discussed in this section). But, like I noted above, that's covered in the Sexual arousal article, and the Orgasm article "shouldn't become filled with images about sexual arousal or random erotic images." Flyer22 (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The image is confusing, with descriptions that don't have a reliable source. Should be removed until a better improved new image is available. Moscowsky^-talk- 05:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Include the photos. The two explicit photos that were just removed were an excellent addition to an unnecessarily vague article, visually depicting female and male responses. While I certainly would agree that these are not very clear photos, and that they need detailed descriptions, they are so much more useful than the complete lack of photos which was the state of this article for much or most of its history. We should be bold in adding material like this that gives a different viewpoint on the subject, not overly critical because the added material does not go far enough. Poor material can always be improved; discarding material because it is not perfect is not in the WP spirit of incremental improvement. If we can have allegorical paintings included, which arguably have little directly to do with the topic, we certainly should have explicit photos as well. David Spector (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

David Spector, how has this article been unnecessarily vague by lacking images, when, like I stated above and elaborated on in the section immediately below this one, "it is difficult to depict an orgasm/a person having one" (except for when a male ejaculates, though ejaculation doesn't always equate to orgasm)? While sexual arousal is a part of orgasm (and romance can be as well, as you noted in the section immediately below this one), this article is primarily about orgasm. We already have a Sexual arousal article (and a Romance (love) article). Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Even explicit human photographs can be included, they should be ones that focus on the moment of orgasm, not ones illustrating other sexual arousal periods with vague messages that help nothing to this article but only bring confusions and redundancies. The arguments of the first photo here should also be noted, I believe nobody would like to bring such troubles to this article in any way. Moscowsky^-talk- 11:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Three (relatively minor) errors in caption of the female anatomy picture

In the current article, the caption for the picture entitled "The female reproductive system" has the following errors:

• The first line of the caption is terminated with a semicolon. It should instead be a complete sentence according to Wikipedia:CAP. I suggest "The female reproductive system and ancillary organs, showing the position of the the G-spot (4) and the clitoris (5), which are key to female orgasm."

One could argue that this should be the entirety of the caption, but since there are 14 pins in the picture, one feels compelled to provide labels for them all.

• Item 9) is listed as "sigmoid colonti", but should instead be Sigmoid colon;

• The list ends with "... and 13) rectum", but there are 14 numbered items. I believe that the caption should be corrected to read "... 13) rectum; and 14) anus" (for verification of #14, I provide , which has words rather than numbers for the labels).

I am not sure if the items should be links to the pages for the organ in question, but it couldn't hurt.

Simuloid (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable and logical to me, I respectfully suggest you be bold and edit the article to remove said errors. Nicoli Maege (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Zygote: is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined

If you record yourself saying Zygote, and play it backwards, it sounds like orgasm. Drrake (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Include that some men experience Postorgasmic Illness Syndrome after ejaculation

I suggest to add the following line at the end of section 3.1.1 Males:

Some men experience physical and cognitive symptoms characterized as Postorgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS) after ejaculation. KalleVomDach (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but inclusion of such a rare condition, especially in the manner proposed, seems entirely undue to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this revert by AndyTheGrump. It seems WP:Undue weight to include mention of such a rare condition, at least in the way you included it. This is not to say that rare medical conditions cannot be included in an article about whatever topic the rare condition concerns, but rather that it is a case-by-case basis when it comes to determining the inclusion of rare medical conditions in the main Wikipedia article that the condition concerns. And if we are to include such material, it should be given the appropriate (due) weight. In the See also section, you included a link to the Wikipedia article on this matter after AndyTheGrump reverted you; that is fine, though it should be de-capitalized, which I'll do now. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear AndyTheGrump and Flyer22 thanks for your comments. I just started editing, and am thus still learning. --KalleVomDach (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2014

• <spam link removed>

Mikyaula (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Please read our Wikipedia:External links-guideline. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 19:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Sam Sailor ^Sing 19:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed link to prostate orgasms/multiple male orgasms experiences and forums.

aneros.com contains many forums, histories, wiki entries, and blogs of interest to those researching multiple male orgasms and prostate orgasms, particularly written by people using the prostate massage toys provided by Aneros. These were developed (and are still sold by High Island Health, the medical side of the company) as medical devices; their orgasmic uses were reported to them by patients, not unlike the side effects of Viagra, being tested as a heart medication. Access by unregistered guests is encouraged. This is a massive source of admittedly apocryphal material on an otherwise under-reported phenomenon. 96.42.86.240 (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO. Such links would be unacceptable for multiple reasons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

prolactine, ~depressed mood, ~irritation

In the preface you can read following: "Prolactin is a typical neuroendocrine response in depressed mood and irritation." This is wrong sentence, prolactine indeed has some inhibitory effects on sexual drive, but it is not associated with depressed mood. Drugs such as SSRI which cause higher prolactine release do not bring about depression! Moreover, mild depression seems to increase sexual drive. It seems like only severe depression can cause impotence, but that is not the specific effect in depreesion, it seems rather that all nervous system functions deteriorate in depression. I would also be very careful with the word "irritation" as irritation is rather psychological fenomenon, an emotional thing that occurs as a part of cognitive processes. Article needs correction!!

Prolactin is a stress hormone if I'm not mistaken. SSRIs have nothing to do with prolactin in the context of orgasm. While it makes sense that mild depression could stimulate one to seek sexual stimulation or satisfaction this is quite often not the case, as depression often manifests antisocial behaviors in people [who are depressed].RotogenRay (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Tone of the article: Cissexism, and intersex-excluding language

The article uses cis-sexist, and intersex-excluding language, which makes it overall unprofessional. Consider changing "men and women", "males and females" and permutations of it to "humans" or "people" or removing it whenever it doesn't contribute to the clarity of the text. The use of "both sexes" can similarly be avoided. See , for more discussion. 207.35.65.36 (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2014‎ (UTC)

We are supposed to go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, and they discuss male or female orgasms as opposed to third gender or genderqueer orgasms. And the sources do this because they are clearly distinguishing biological sex (the physiology of the human body or non-human animal body) from gender (as in mostly cultural/social matters). The topic of orgasm is one of the cases where the sex and gender distinction is good to be employed. And like I've recently stated here at the Transsexualism article, while researchers address the existence of three or more genders, science has not shown that there are three or more sexes. Intersex people are sometimes categorized as a third sex, but they are not truly a third sex; they are a combination of both sexes, and they usually identify a male/man or female/woman (and their biology usually identifies them as male or female). Transgender people also usually identify as male/man or female/woman. So we will not be giving this article a spin with regard to the topic of cisgender, considering that doing so in the way that you suggest will make the article unclear regarding what sex or sexes we are referring to and is straying from the sources. Also see Talk:Phimosis/Archive 2#Definition for a similar discussion about going without gendered language on medical and/or anatomy articles.

On a side note: Remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. I also altered the heading of this section with ": Cissexism, and intersex-excluding language" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 08:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not agreeing but I think this is an interesting perspective. The underlying question seems to be : is orgasm considered the same in males and females to the point that "rewiring" via surgery and hormonal treatments yields the same underlying phenomena? While the pleasure is probably common this context; sexual drive and use of sexual energy is vastly different in males and females. I've read somewhere that possibly up to 30% of the food energy consumed by males goes to the gonads and the extra immune system capacity/layer protecting them. This does not appear to be a direct function of endocrine system balance or physiological gender manifestations (or sexual orientation) but likely a function of the gender-specific DNA information. Finding the answer to that question may require more information than is currently available, as to the accusation of a cis-sexist tone, it is unlikely the article was intentionally written to exclude any group or groups, however the main of scientific inquiry has subdivided this particular phenomena into the study of it's particular manifestation in males and females who identify as 'male' and 'female'RotogenRay (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Physiological effects

There needs to be some kind of relevant information about the changes in body chemistry during orgasm. RotogenRay (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, RotogenRay. I'm confused as to what you mean by "the changes in body chemistry during orgasm." The article does address the physiological effects of orgasm. It's difficult not to address that when talking about the topic of orgasm. Flyer22 (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I mean like a timeline or something which describes what is happening inside the body during the process of orgasm. The focus of this article is orgasm in the context of sex or sexual activity, rather than talking about the inner workings of arousal and orgasm. I just think the body chemistry aspect should have its own section.RotogenRay (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I would see no harm in adding timelines about body chemistry before during and after orgasm in the male and female, but I have never seen such a thing in a reliable source upon which we could base article content. Synthesising our own out of what we know and can find in various places would not be allowed under Wikipedia policies. If you know of a paper, book or medical website that has such things, please let us know, and we can work together to add the material. --Nigelj (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

RotogenRay, since there is a section (with subsections) in the article about the physiological effects of orgasm, describing what is happening inside the body during the process of orgasm, I'm still not quite sure what you are looking to be added to the Orgasm article...other than a timeline sequence. The closest thing we have to a timeline sequence regarding orgasm is the Human sexual response cycle article. And we do mention that cycle in the Orgasm article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

maybe a better word

The article reads:
the clitoral glans moves inward under the clitoral hood.
I would write:
the clitoral glans retracts under the clitoral hood,
but the page is protected :-( 85.193.218.118 (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've updated the article as you suggested. kyledueck (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :-) 85.193.218.118 (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Tantric sex and Vajrayana Buddhism

I am quite perplexed by the statement: "Tantric sex, which is not the same as Buddhist tantra (Vajrayana), is the ancient Indian spiritual tradition of sexual practices."

This statement doesn't appear to be sourced at all, and the sources listed in this category are no experts in Buddhism, let alone Buddhist Tantrayana/Vajrayana. The fact is, Vajrayana Buddhism does include tantric sex. In fact, Indo-Tibetan Buddhism has its own unique forms of tantric sex that mostly originated in India. Saying "its not the same" as Buddhist tantra is highly misleading, as though Buddhist tantra is tantric sex plus more, to say its not the same implies strongly that tantric sex is something completely other than Vajrayana, which is false. In fact the definition of tantric sex following that flawed disclaimer in no way distinguishes itself from the practices found in Buddhism, which further calls into question the distinction posed.

Take for example the Indo-Tibetan practice of the six yogas of naropa, one of which includes karmamudra. One of the three forms of karmamudra in Indo-Tibetan practice are specific sexual practices with a partner. Or take tummo, heat yoga, one of the two major approaches to achieving the so called "great bliss" that is a goal in the mother tantra category of Buddhist tantras, is through the "lower entrances" which involves control over the orgasm and the reversal and retention of ejaculate fluids.

These sort of things are discussed in materials such as: 'Apparitions of the Self; The Secret Autobiographies of a Tibetan Visionary By: Gyatso Janet' and http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/humanidades/elicap/en/uploads/Biblioteca/bdz-e.version.pdf and http://www.scribd.com/doc/218160907/The-Art-of-Nakedness-Bearing-it-all-for-the-single-nature-of-mind-a-look-at-Buddhist-salvation

I would be happy to reword this section if it is unlocked, and if anyone with the authority to unlock is wiling or would like more the page numbers in the references I list, please respond and I will be happy to take the time. I am simply waiting for a response before enacting the labor of finding the more specific sources as to not unnecessarily waste my time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorrectionPleaseXL (talk • contribs) 15:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Functions of female orgasm

A recent paper by Puts, Dawood and Welling (2012) reviews evidence for the three hypotheses that exist for the function of the female orgasm: byproduct hypothesis, mate-choice hypothesis and sire choice hypothesis. Currently, most evidence supports the sire choice hypothesis. I think the section on functions of female orgasm needs to be more structured perhaps by hypothesis, or definitely include these three hypotheses more clearly. It currently looks very information heavy and difficult to read by a non-expert. Nicolehyare (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Puts DA, Dawood K, Welling LL (2012). "Why women have orgasms: An evolutionary analysis" (PDF). Archives of sexual behavior. 41 (5): 1127–1143. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-9967-x.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

References

thanks :) Nicolehyare (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Would like to edit the section "Theoretical biological and evolutionary functions of female orgasm" by adding a short introductory paragraph to the literature. Giving a brief overview/history to the literature on evolutionary/biological functions of the female orgasm. Should I post on here what I would like adding and then someone can add it in? I can see the page is semi-protected. I haven't yet made enough edits. Nicolehyare (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: You can propose your changes here. Re-open this request once you have a specific change you want made. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 16:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Would like to edit the section "Theoretical biological and evolutionary functions of female orgasm" by adding a short introductory paragraph to the literature. Giving a brief overview/history to the literature on evolutionary/biological functions of the female orgasm. This is what I would like to add before the sub-sections of this main section.

The function(s) of the human female orgasm have been debated amongst researchers since the topic was investigated. The literature started with the argument that female orgasm is a byproduct of shared early male ontogeny, where male orgasm is an adaptation. More recently, research has shifted to investigate and support the sire-choice hypothesis, which proposes that female orgasm has been shaped by natural selection to function in the selection of high quality sires (male parents) for offspring. Therefore, orgasm increases the chances of conceiving with males of a high genetic quality. The below sections provide more detail on each function proposed.

References

Nicolehyare (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: have managed to edit the page now. Nicolehyare (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking of some informations to add to this article, concerning the function of female orgasms. The evolutionary hypothesis states that female orgasm is a choice adaptation, rather than a by-product, and it has been proved that female orgasms do have some goals. A study found a positive correlation between female's frequency of copulatory orgasms and her partner's facial symmetry. Females have more orgasms if they are with a partner with low fluctuating asymmetry, which can lead to female preference of some males. This supports the sire-choice hypothesis. Female orgasm can be interpreted as a sign of high quality in her partner (potential future parent). Drey02 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Drey02, one of your class mates, Oryx7892 (talk · contribs), added material on some of that. And as seen here and here, I tweaked it per WP:In-text attribution; the WP:Due weight policy goes along with that. You, Nicolehyare (whose addition I also tweaked) and the rest of your class working on WP:Class assignments here at Wikipedia need to keep those rules in mind. Same goes for minding WP:Primary source and WP:Fringe. The section in question mostly deals with theories and hypotheses. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

___

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Orgasm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131227055826/http://www.anugraha.info/Traningdownload.php?file=20111213044253Trauma.pdf&arg3=resource&op=center to http://www.anugraha.info/Traningdownload.php?file=20111213044253Trauma.pdf&arg3=resource&op=center

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Confusing contradiction re: male refractory period

The article states, "an increased infusion of the hormone oxytocin during ejaculation is believed to be chiefly responsible for the refractory period, and the amount by which oxytocin is increased may affect the length of each refractory period," but in the next paragraph states, "another possible reason for the lack or absence of a refractory period in men may be an increased infusion of the hormone oxytocin. It is believed that the amount by which oxytocin is increased may affect the length of each refractory period" (emphasis mine). Huh? So does "an increased infusion of the hormone oxytocin" cause or inhibit the refractory period? 73.134.16.43 (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

This is indeed a contradiction. Thanks for bringing this mistake into attention. I will correct that eventually if nobody else corrects it first. You can correct it yourself, for instance. I am currently busy doing research to improve skin whitening.

I have noticed that this article is overall bad structured, it has many unsourced or poorly sourced content and is missing relevant information (E.g: influence of psychoactive drugs in orgasm). I make no assertion that I will fix that.

Regards.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC).

Merge from Coregasm

This is simple one type. Should be here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep as stand-alone article for these reasons. First, coregasms happen mostly to women while orgasms happen to both sexes. Second, coregasms happen accidentally during exercise or yoga, while a conventional run-of-the-mill orgasm happens deliberately like Olympians going for the gold, with a partner or a sex toy or nimble fingers and hopefully not a second cousin or consenting mammal. Third, coregasm is a getting much attention in women's and beauty and exercise magazines and pop culture in general as a distinct subject such as here and here. Fourth, coregasms are a distinct subject of medical research from respected academic sex researcher Debby Herbenick who published her study in a peer-reviewed journal which was reported by health-related reliable sources such as here and here and here; that is, researchers are not investigating orgasms in general (with mentions of coregasms in their papers) but rather they are studying it as a distinct subject in its own right. That is, coregasm is studied and reported on as a stand-alone subject. One last reason: Wikipedian contributors are 90% men; but coregasms happen to women -- it seems like a bias-in-the-making if a women-only phenomenon gets subsumed in a male-dominated article like orgasm, and it would be clearer all told if the articles were kept separate. For these reasons, coregasm merits its own article, and not this stripped down medical-type version here but my earlier fleshed-out version with coverage from the numerous angles.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note: This is further discussed at Talk:Coregasm. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Merge: There is no reason this article can't handle unintentional or spontaneous orgasms in addition to conventional ones. Until this sub-topic becomes large enough I don't see a reason to keep it separate. Even the earlier fleshed out version could fit in a subsection here with some formatting changes and judicious editing. Glancing over the current 'Orgasm' article it appears male and female orgasms are both adequately covered (in fact female orgasms may have more coverage) so I don't agree this content would be subsumed into a male dominated article. Sizeofint (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Additional comment: At Talk:Coregasm, I debated Tomwsulcer on covering this topic; included in that debate is the fact that there's so much misinformation out there already on female orgasms, the question of how "coregasm" could possibly be distinct from "orgasm" if, for females, the coregasms originate in the vaginal/clitoral area, and the fact that coregasms are not scientifically validated. So I'd rather that the topic not be covered in so much detail, whether by having its own article or being an aspect of this one. If it is merged here, though, it should get its own section, judging by the current setup of the Orgasm article, so that it's not lumped in with the scientifically valid stuff and so that it is easily seen as a subtopic of the orgasm topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup its own section in the main article after trimming it down to that which is well supported. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Also note that the reason that this article covers female orgasms more than it does male orgasms is due to the literature on orgasms; the literature focuses on female orgasms far more than it focuses on male orgasms, which is somewhat noted in the third paragraph of this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• am thinking. leaning yes, but the essence of the study - and the strain of research it is part of - that got hyped/distorted into "coregasm" is the relationship between exercise and sexual pleasure. Found this really interesting source - Butt, DS (June 1990). "The sexual response as exercise. A brief review and theoretical proposal". Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.). 9 (6): 330–43. PMID 2192423. - when i turned the coregasm article from some Cosmo-wannabe into a WP article and it is just fascinating. Happy to send it to anybody who doesn't have it. But that is what is making me lean toward thinking we should maybe merge it into Sexual stimulation which is really lame right now, or maybe into Physical exercise. With a mention here. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

This is possible. With the label 'coregasm' I assumed the emphasis was on the orgasm. If it is more generally about sexual stimulation during physical exercise then there may be a better location for it. Sizeofint (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, I read the review over the couple of days I was absent from Wikipedia, and I'm not sure about the content being a section of the Sexual stimulation article. I'm even less sure about merging it to the Physical exercise article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, any thoughts on Jytdog's proposals? I mean, after looking at the review he cited above, of course. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep/oppose merge. I want wikipedia to be a comprehensive website. You're not going to have a comprehensive website when you concentrate articles. Nor is content going to survive with the marked prevalence of deletionists on wikipedia. The best way to ensure this content does not fade into thin air (as it likely will if merged) is by keeping them separate. The onyl reason i'm on this website i because the founder called it the sum of all human knowledge. Unfortunately I see a lot of people attempting to compress content together as if we are on a preservation project trying to save the Amazon forest by writing on as little paper as possible. Pwolit iets (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Surely let's have a section here in the orgasm article about coregasms -- limited to MEDRS-type criteria. But having a standalone article in addition means that other aspects of coregasms can be included in addition to the biomedical stuff, such as the experience or coregasms, how they happen, which exercises tend to cause it to happen, and so forth.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Pwolit iets, reading this site's rules and generally following them is something to consider when editing here. Consolidation on Wikipedia is based on WP:Content forking, WP:No page, WP:No split and WP:Spinout. Not every topic should have its own Wikipedia article, and this is especially the case for topics that are not WP:Notable, topics that would be redundant or mostly redundant to an existing article (or articles), and a topic that is essentially a WP:Stub article and would be better served in an article that addresses the topic as a whole. In the case of the Genderqueer article, for example, it is not beneficial to make our readers go to a bunch of different stub articles so that they can read about every identity that falls under "genderqueer." Most of the identities can be covered in the Genderqueer article, which is currently relatively small. Any notable genderqueer identity that needs its own article because there is much literature on it and it would otherwise overtake the Genderqueer article can be validly split into its own article after initially being regulated to the main article. That is the type of thing I do when it comes to merging or considering merging. I am not a WP:Deletionist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Merge – "Coregasm" merits only a brief mention here, if it all. Alexbrn (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• merge a small section in orgasm would be enough...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• Merge A second article should be created after a form of orgasm different from that covered by orgasm is verified by reliable sources. It's great fun to read anecdotes about coregasm and see pictures of spunky individuals, but that is not the core purpose of Wikipedia. If there is evidence that spontaneous orgasm through exercise can occur, due mention can be made in this article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• Merge for all the same reasons described by Ozzie10aaaa, Johnuniq and Alexbrn -   Bfpage |leave a message  00:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

How to merge

Seems like there is a pretty clear consensus to merge. How do we want to do it? Sizeofint (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Give it a section after the "Literature" section. It doesn't fit anywhere else. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it here, turning the focus to exercise-induced orgasm, which is the stream of research into which this fits. Maybe should go into the "research and other factors" section but it seemed to be UNDUE in that section... happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I left it in the "Females" section you added it to, but I moved it below the "Other factors and research" subsection because most of what is in that section is not fringe...while "coregasm" is fringe. I also thought about merging it with the "Other factors and research" section. See my edits here, here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

"It can additionally be achieved by stimulation of the nipples, uterus, or other erogenous zones"

Stimulation of the uterus? (????) --94.223.142.139 (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't add that. And you may have seen by now that an editor fixed it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)