User:Jameson.thomas52/sandbox

Criticisms
There has been much research conducted based on Masters and Johnson's model. It is important to note, however, that many inaccuracies have been found in the descriptions of the stages of sexual response. For example, Roy Levin recently identified a few areas of the model that had not been touched upon. First, Masters and Johnson state that only the vagina is lubricated during the arousal stage; Levin argues that the labia produces its own lubricant. Levin also presents research which shows that the first signs of physiological arousal in women is increased blood flow to the vagina, not lubrication. He also debunks a couple of facts on men and their sexual response. Masters and Johnson report that pleasure was positively associated with the volume of ejaculate released. Rosenberg, Hazzard, Tallman, and Ohl gave a group of men a questionnaire and found that significantly more men reported that physical pleasure was associated with the strength of the ejaculation compared to the volume.

Many researchers have also criticized how Masters and Johnson define sexual response solely in terms of physiology. Both, Everaerd, and Laan have found that sexual arousal can be defined as an emotional state in both men and women. Some researchers have also pointed out that there is a lack of concordance between women's subjective sexual arousal and their genital arousal. Rosemary Basson argues that this model poorly explains women's sexual response, especially for those who are in long-term relationships.