Talk:Orgasm/Archive 5

Section -Achieving orgasm- contains incorrect information about multiple orgasms
It cites that multiple orgasms are 'uncommon in women' but the book it quotes as evidence says the opposite: Copied from page 175 of 'Our Sexuality': It is not uncommon for a woman to have several sequential orgasms, separated in time by the briefest of intervals (perhaps only seconds). In contrast, the spacing of male orgasms is typically more protracted. How many women experience multiple orgasms? Kinsey and colleagues (1953)reported that about 14% of their female study subjects regularly had multiple orgasms. In 1970 a survey of Psychology Todayreaders revealed a 16% figure (Athana- siou et al., 1970).

Rachelmt (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What the "Achieving orgasm" section states on the matter is the following: "Multiple orgasms are also possible, especially in women, but they are also uncommon." Notice that the text is not just focused on women and is clear that multiple orgasms are especially possible in women.


 * I'll see what the "Our sexuality" source reports and again revisit what other sources report on the matter. What the text should probably state is "but they are also less common."


 * With sources, the Orgasm subsection of the "Males" section states, "Although, due to the refractory period, it is rare for men to achieve multiple orgasms, some men have reported having multiple, consecutive orgasms, particularly without ejaculation. Multiple orgasms are more commonly reported in very young men than in older men. In younger men, the refractory period may only last a few minutes, but last more than an hour in older men."


 * The Orgasm subsection of the "Females" section states, "Masters and Johnson argued that all women are potentially multiply orgasmic, but that multiply orgasmic men are rare, and stated that 'the female is capable of rapid return to orgasm immediately following an orgasmic experience, if restimulated before tensions have dropped below plateau phase response levels'." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see that the "Our sexuality" source speaks on the topic of multiple orgasms seeming to occur in a minority of women. Again, I'll look at what other sources state and see about rewording the text. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Duration and gender differences
Welcome, new editor. You asked various questions at my Talk page (here; permalink), and I wanted to respond here, because this is the right place to discuss improvements to this article. You recently added some material on the duration of orgasm and the gender differences. I reverted two attempts to add Bohlen, et al. (1980) about the length of male orgasm, based on WP:PRIMARY, and non-recency. Since that left us with an uncited assertion in the article, I've removed that as well.

Individual studies are WP:PRIMARY sources, and should be avoided in topics or content related to medical research, in favor of literature surveys, or WP:SECONDARY sources like textbooks or monographs. A key phrase at WP:MEDRS is this: "All biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge." Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. We should summarize scientific consensus, and use up-to-date evidence. This is the basis for my removal of recent additions.

My impression of your objections to the reverts, is that it left inaccurate or unsubstantiated claims in the article. You may very well be right about that, but since the previous content had WP:EDITCONSENSUS (which is to say, although many editors are watching this article, none objected), it met our requirements for WP:Verifiability, or at least, it did so up until to the point you objected. At this point, a new consensus should be achieved by discussion here. Since you objected, and the previous material was unsourced, it's fine to just remove that content, and so I did remove it, until it's properly sourced and can be reinserted.

I'm not sure if that answers all your questions from my Talk page. If not, please point out any remaining issues here, where other editors interested in the topic may also find your comments, and join the discussion if they wish. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Interesting. My article was rejected because it is not new. At the same time, the claim that women have an average orgasm duration of 20 seconds is based on an article published 5 years later(1985). This article, however, confirms the claims of the authors of the 1980-82 articles, where a strong variability in the time of orgasm from person to person was found. The same article is used in 1982 by the same authors as the article I suggested in 1980, and no one deletes it. This logic is somewhat incomprehensible to me. Despite the fact that the work of Masters and Johnson is still older than 1966 and there is a lot of criticism on it(as well as on the four-step model, which in fact may not differ at all between the sexes, this was not taken into account by them. There are other models that may be more convenient and reasonable). And in part, the studies of 1980-82, which were cited as proof by me and you, somewhat expanded this work and even contradicted it in some places. At the same time, it is claimed that women experience longer orgasms, but there is no comparative review within a LARGE SAMPLE(in small cases, this cannot be reliably identified, since it is proven that the duration of orgasm varies from person to person). There is no point in publishing tantric nonsense. And so, on different sites you can find that, for example, the average duration of orgasm in women is 16.8 seconds, and in men 25 seconds. If you study different sites on the Internet(be it medical or entertainment), the numbers tend to differ. The conclusion is the same, everything is taken from people's heads - it is their value judgment. It can be taken from the heads of not-so-distant scientists. For example, there are studies that measure the duration of an orgasm through interviews. I hope there is no need to say how subjective and inaccurate this is. Many people may confuse orgasm and post-orgasmic experiences, and many people may perceive time differently in principle. On the contrary, to prove that there is something longer in women, interviews are given in which it is not known whether the author spoke about this difference and how great it was? The statement "MUCH LONGER" was extremely false. Not only is there no measurement and comparative characteristics of the duration of orgasms between the sexes in that 2005 study, but the interview itself is only recorded in text form, which may be an exaggeration of the words that the author of the study said. Why, for example, are the converse cases not considered? This has already been proved more than once in the works of Bohlen et al. and the authors of a 1985 study that the duration of orgasm varies from person to person. And that spread can be colossal, i.e., according to this logic, the male orgasm can be longer than the female one. In what numbers, it is not known because the male orgasm is examined for many aspects much less often than the female one. There are no reliable studies about prostate orgasm (although the orgasm itself exists), about dry orgasms (although the oragasm itself exists). Just a couple of studies on multiple orgasms, even though it was done in the late 20th century. Then no one was interested in the modern review of 2015 (if I'm not mistaken) I was also surprised by this. About the fact that the refractory period increases with age, there are no clear primary sources that would really prove the truth of this statement(Roy J. Levin 2009). Unfortunately, this omission will not be resolved in the near future. Women also have their own peculiarities in research, for example, their refractory period, which according to the laws of any logic should be. Oragzmy can not be infinite because it is stress and stress on the body. There is nothing eternal in man. I will briefly repeat the question, than the 1980 article from Bohlen et al. worse than their own article from 1982, which was published. Or the 1966 Masters and Johnson study, which already has a lot of inaccuracies, or the 1985 article, which claims that the average duration of a female orgasm is 20 seconds? All these articles are from the same era and are extremely similar in their research models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MordvinEvgen (talk • contribs) 10:36, May 1, 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, though. I get it. Don't like this article, okay. At least there is no false information. And it is almost impossible to find an analog. There are almost no studies that aim to measure the duration of orgasm(not to be confused with ejaculation) in men. Women have several more such studies, but most of them are also slag. The 1985 and 1982 studies you cited are the most reliable. I'm not very interested in further discussion yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MordvinEvgen (talk • contribs) 10:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Reich SciFi Another Victim And Tragedy Of Forced Resettlement
Somebody wrote

''Psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich, in his 1927 book Die Funktion des Orgasmus (published in English in 1980 as Genitality in the Theory and Therapy of Neurosis) was the first to make orgasm central to the concept of mental health, and defined neurosis in terms of blocks to having orgastic potency. Although orgasm dysfunction can have psychological components, physiological factors often play a role. For instance, delayed orgasm or the inability to achieve orgasm is a common side effect of many medications.''

His best work was 1934 "Massenpsychologie des Faschismus". In the USA he failed totaly with his unscientific Orgone.

(Similar late Tesla Tesla never understood Maxwell and the loss in the propagation law of energy transfer by radio 1/r²)

Reich landete mit dem Orgon leider auf dem Müllhaufen der Wissenschaftsgeschichte.

So also his "Funktion des Orgasmus" is more a kind of SciFi and should be taken hypothetically only. Dates from the high times of hydraulics with concepts of sexuality overpressure and of similar weird war theories as an explosion. Nothing explodes.

Far more, it´s possible to have extended orgasms on the same high level as one will without any drugs. The concept of kundalini sexual tantra, illuminaton or even enlightenment as forbidden science. Main aspects of the real experience of the real missing here, but who knows why.

Maybe strong pseudomorality, much stronger as the ora et labora catholicism before.

OK- One may say Gentleman is silent and enjoys but science should be free and true for all. This Wiki is not. Too much preachers. By the way, Brexit was financed by multibillionaires. money rules. it´s a talk page.--2003:F2:870F:F617:42B:C20A:982A:29E6 (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Too Nebulous
Don't think you can attribute orgasm to physical stimulation of the penis. Ridiculously vague and non-specific. Scarcely more specific than 'stimulation of the human'. The only component of the penis for which physical stimulation leads to a sense of pleasure is the corona of the glans. The body of the glans is insensate. Not capable of imparting any sense of sexual pleasure whatever. The rest of the penis is utterly immaterial. Would not be surprised to learn the clitoris is essentially insensate tissue like the glans, and only a 'corona' of the clitoris is actually sensitive. Ought to be able to do a lot better than 'stimulation of the penis'. Surely there are authoritative sources on this somewhere.

122.151.210.84 (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Refractory period
MrOllie, I explained myself here and here. This information is at Orgasm in more appropriate detail. The refractory period is most commonly defined as a physiological male response, and what has been termed "refractory period" in females is not the same thing. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Information about females and their "refractory period" is at Orgasm. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

"Acmegenesis" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Acmegenesis and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CycloneYoris talk! 20:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback needed at Talk:Orgasm gap
Hello. Per WP:APPNOTE, I'm asking for feedback at Talk:Orgasm gap and Talk:Orgasm gap. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Male vs female orgasm
Why is there no mention of women, in general, feeling orgasms in their whole body, while men, in general, only experience sexual pleasure in their genital region? -- 24.134.246.185 (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for any of that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that not considered common knowledge? -- 24.134.246.185 (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Commenting on the statement that men, in general, only experience sexual pleasure in their genital region. As the phrase goes, your mileage may vary. Unfortunately, sex is inconsistently studied in medicine, & any personal anecdotes would be original research. Here are a couple of citations:
 * Peaceray (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Peaceray (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Peaceray (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Peaceray (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Fringe theories
People who deny that Brody, Costa, and Reich are WP:FRINGE lack scientific literacy. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2022
remove the "Experienced by males and females", if the goal is to generalize change to "Experienced by most known mammals" 190.31.207.28 (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * rejected - This article is specifically about the human orgasm. Animal sexual behaviour is the relevant article. If you have a good source for your claim, expanding the "Pleasure" section of the latter would be helpful, since it's a bit brief. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Very clumsy language
"However, definitions of orgasm vary and there is a sentiment that consensus on how to consistently classify it is absent."

I think the writer means:

"Definitions of orgasm vary and there is no consensus on how to classify it." 147.148.211.100 (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)