Talk:Orgasm/Archive 1

Necessary?

Found under Dry Orgasms

Some boys who were lucky enough to experience dry orgasm before entering puberty

To me this doesn't sound very neutral as its implying it's a good thing to have pre-pubescent orgasms, this is opinion.--82.8.6.193 03:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC) I completely agree with you;actually, it looks as if every single sex related article is chock0full of opinions.Erik the Red 2 21:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Erik the Red 2

Removed "It is also said that the female orgasm doesn't exist."

This line was found at the end of the first section of "human female orgasm", and appeared to be a complete nonsequiter, used weasel words, contradicted the rest of the article, and had no source (the two footnotes immediately afterwards referred to the study of orgasm vs. demographics, and neither of them said anything about nonexistence of female orgasm.) 75.21.194.183 14:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Chemicals in orgasm

There is little biological chemical information mentioned in this artical. We know about oxytocin and a couple of other chemicals; but there is siad to be more involved such as dopamine, histamine and probably epinephrine and norepinephrine that would be released during, before and asfter orgasm. I have tried to find information about the biochemistry of this and it is difficult to come by, and yet there have been TV programs mentioning the chemicals released. There is also chemicals released in the use of aphrodisiacs like Viagra, no mention of this sort of things, which is very important part of such an artical. Can someone find information about chemicals and neurotransmitter release in this activity?

Prolactin and dopamine definitely play a part in this; I think this has been elaborated on in the articles about neurobiology etc.. For instance, prolactin plays a role in the male orgasm refractory period, and cabergoline (which enhances dopamine and powerfully supresses prolactin) has been known to shorten or eliminate this refractory period. Anecdotal evidence is kind of moot, but it might serve as a guide to where one might look for answers, and this is the talk page, not the article, so here goes:

• SSRIs have been known to induce anorgasmia, particularly in women. MDMA (which releases serotonin and prolactin, among other things) reportedly supresses erections in men and orgasms in both sexes. Serotonin has some downregulating effects on certain dopamine receptors, as well as an upregulating effect (in the long term) on D2-receptors and a long-term downregulating effect on beta adrenoceptors, so it might not be directly involved.
• Reboxetine has been reported to heighten the pleasure of orgasm in men (which I can support from personal experience), which may (speculating based on personal experience here) be due to increased prostate pressure. Unfortunately, reflux and other issues makes it unviable, but it indicates that there may be a role for norepinephrine in orgasm.
• Opiates can have an effect on the libido of both genders, erection in men, and orgasm in both genders, but the reports I have seen have been somewhat inconsistent (mostly a short-term improvement and a long-term worsening).
• Risperidone, an atypical antipsychotic, can induce nausea and/or vomiting during orgasm.
• Dopamine enhancing drugs tend to raise libido, and have been reported to increase intensity of orgasm. I can support both effects from personal experience, although this might be due to the increased testosterone levels or the inhibiting effect of dopamine on prolactin.

There's other things too, but these are the ones I'm fairly certain about. It would seem that prolactin, dopamine, testosterone, norepinephrine and serotonin are the prime candidates to look at, in that order. Oxytocin is correlated, according to that article, but according to the text, it appears it is caused by orgasm, not the other way around, presumably as a pair bonding mechanism. I'm not too up to date on histamine-modulating drugs, so I can't say anything about that.

(Not watchlisted, so replies to my talk page would be preferred) Zuiram 17:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I heared of this aswell.I was told that a chemical produced in Orgasms is also present in most Chocolate! Which if true explains why women seem to love chocolate. OV

That's a total stereotype. It doesn't explain anything.CerealBabyMilk 21:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

inconsistent

This article is full of contradictions and repetition, if anyone reads the article as a whole this wll be obvious.

Orgasm through nipples?

A few weeks ago, I was licking, sucking, and rubbing my girlfriends nipples. After a while, she told me she had an orgasm. I had no idea that was even possible, and I haven't been able to find any information on this. Is it possible to have an orgasm through nipple-stimulation? --Caeliv 11:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence suggests that in women, orgasm (or at least, the pleasure associated with it) is largely psychological; Wired magazine had something on that not too awfully long ago, in an article referred to on the zine's cover as "Sex, Women and Science of Orgasm". Or something very close to that. Anyway, short answer: yeah, it's possible, if she was turned on enough. Long answer: read the Wired article, and this one. It's possible she was moving her vaginal or clitoral muscles without realizing it as well (as a woman, I can verify that a woman is capable of this, even in ways that could, er, lead to arousal, let's just say. Never got off like thaton it though, heh), and possible that she was mentally aroused enough that it caused some sort of orgasm. If she's not lying to you, then I'd be flattered if I were you, because she's then obviously really into whatever it is you do for her. :P Runa27 07:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Every woman is different. Out of my group of friends I know at least one for whom orgasms from only breast play is not unusual. Not the case for others. It obviously works for your girlfriend. — Laura Scudder ☎ 03:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And, yes, who you're with is a key factor in my opinion, so be happy she obviously enjoys being with you. — Laura Scudder ☎ 03:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Female orgasms can be achieved through mental stimulation by itself; apparently this has been documented to some extent. There are some anecdotes about men who are able to achieve this as well, but I'm not aware of anything substantial. Zuiram 17:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of Peter Fendi Artwork

The artwork of Peter Fendi is quite entertaining, and that appears to be quite a strong gentleman, but it seems loosely relevant to orgasm at best -- it really just explains the act of sexual intercourse. Perhaps someone can elaborate or draw the connection for me?

-- Steve3003 23:26, 23 August 2006 (EDT)

I agree. If anyone with no knowledge of orgasm came to this article and saw that picture, imagine what kind of impressions they would get? :P

--Caeliv 11:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the picture is not particularly relevant. Moreover, I'm not convinced there's an image that actually depicts it; it's different for everyone. I'm in favor of not having pictures in this article at all. I will change it. Galactiger 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Imipramine

Removed the following:

Imipramine, a tri-cyclic anti-depressant (TCA), is known to cause spontaneous orgasms among patients who take it.

No source I found, verifiable or otherwise, supports this. In fact, one of the known side effects of Imipramine is difficulty experiencing orgasm and sexual arousal, common to Tricyclic antidepressants.

I suspect the person who added that meant to say Clomipramine which has been document to cause orgasms when sneezing in certain patients. Reference snopes verification if doubtful.

-Zandlyman 04:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The only drug I know of that has been reported to cause spontaneous orgasms is the antidepressant amineptine, a dopamine reuptake inhibitor which was reclassified as a narcotic drug due to its potential for abuse in healthy individuals. The anorgasmia from imipramine is most likely due to a serotonergic effect, as most SSRIs have this as a potential side effect, particularly in women.

Zuiram 17:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

human orgasm

Shouldn't this article be labeled as Human Orgasm? What other types of animals have orgasms, how do they compare to that of humans? Icarus Down 03:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, other animals do, although the extent varies. You should ask a veterinarian. No personal experience, but zoophiles indicate this is the case for dogs (significant) and horses (not so much), at least; again, a veterinarian would be the proper source.

Support moving the article, anyway.

Zuiram 17:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

i'm pretty sure that dogs have orgasms. now, say, jellyfish, for example, i'm less sure of... Gringo300 18:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen several sources which claim that boars have orgasms that last about 15-30 minutes... (83.64.17.44 03:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

effects of orgasm on the brain

Does anyone know about the effects of orgasm on the brain? It is mentioned that endorphins are released but there must be more to it? --137.205.139.178 22:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Orgasm trebles the level of oxytocin in the brain. Oxytocin is a neurotransmitter associated with sexual pleasure and pair bonding in humans. Ichelhof

I second user 137.205.139.178|137.205.139.178's question. I think it would be interesting if the article contained a section discussing the neurological/neurochemical/hormonal effects of orgasm. Unfortunately I do not have the time to research this myself. If the Oxytocin thing could be written up in detail in the article and supported with a source given I think that would add to the quality of the article.

i'd say that orgasms have effects on the brain that could be called alternate states of consciousness, similar to that produced by the use of certain drugs. Gringo300 18:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned above a Wired magazine article on the research being done on the female orgasm, and I'll mention it again because there's another factor I found interesting about it: in women, having just orgasmed raises the threshold of pain by about 50% compared to the same woman pre-orgasm. That would imply a LOT of endorphins are released, among possibly other things as well. In fact, the article in Wired noted that the researchers initially had sought merely to understand the female orgasm and maybe develop a "Viagraa for women", but that they then thought that they may have stumbled upon potential methods of creating better pain killers (or at least, on data that could lead to such methods). :P I'll cite the article if I can find my copy of the 'zine and can figure out how. Runa27 07:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientists in the Netherlands have discovered that an orgasm is neurologically equivalent to a hit of heroin. By getting volunteers to have sex whilst keeping their heads perfectly still in a PET-scanning machine, researchers at Groningen University were able to form an image of the neurological effects of orgasm. --Matt:: Dec. 3, 2006
Source: [1]

How on earth did they do that? A PET scan takes ages, are you sure you're not talking about SPECT? If the halflife is equivalent as well, then you'd not have time to image it. It is also harder to get a clear picture of which receptors are hit; the dopamine receptors are likely, for instance, and not just as a downstream effect of the endorphin rush.

Also, opiate receptor blocking agents do not induce anorgasmia, so I doubt this is the full picture. They do cause delayed ejaculation in men sometimes, though. Anecdotally, partial agonism (which antagonises endorphins) at the µ-receptor heightens the sensation in the short term, with little effect in the long term, for me, which also makes this seem odd, unless the amount released is enough to dissociate the binding at the µ-receptor, which would normally induce respiratory depression in the absence of pain, as well as nausea and/or vomiting in all cases.

It would seem more likely that this is caused by beta-phenethylamine (PEA), since this is the only endogenous neurotransmitter I know of that has a similar halflife. It can be released in those quantities.

Should this talk section perhaps be merged with the other one about chemical effects? I listed a few bits about the chemistry there.

Zuiram 18:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

tidbits

These are some tidbits I've heard are true (TLC is a great channel), but am not confident enough to add to the main article:

• female orgasms are unique to humans. This could be attributed to the fact that human females don't go in to heat.
• It is possible for men to have multiple orgasms. I read in an article in psychology today about a year and a half ago that the trick lies in learning how to separate orgasm from ejaculation.
• The feelings of euphoria are due to a release of endorphins

--Cple_sensuel

My wife and myself are practionner of tantric massages also called sexual yoga.

• After three years of practice, my wife can have many intense orgasms in a raw. They are very intense because they are brain-triggered.
• For my own, I have learned to separate orgasm and ejaculation. I can also have many orgasms without ejaculation and I have a full control of the ejaculation, i.e. I can be stimulated during more than a hour without ejaculating.

--BlackGriffen

WOAH! Hold the phone! Female orgasm is not limited to humans--saying so only displays our ignorance on the subject, not to mention that it might contribute to the myth that female

orgasm is unimportant. Dr. Joan Roughgarden's book "Evolution's Rainbow" attests to the existence of female orgasm in animals. In fact, female orgasm is evidenced as one of the primary reasons for female same-sex copulation in various animal species.

Just so you know. --Emma

---

Never say "propagating the species" unless you want to piss all biologists around. Organisms propagate own genes and *only* that. --Taw

---

Heuu if it helps I can certify that multiple orgasm in men exists and it's great.

RBD

---

This comment was in the article:

we need to write here about clitoral vs. vaginal orgasms, with reference to Freud's misconceptions, feminist attempts to refute Freud, and recent research which seems to show that both vaginal and clitoral organisms exist, but not for all women

Latest research, following on from Shere Hite, is that given how far the clitoris extends around the vagina, they're all involving the clitoris in some way or another. -- Tarquin

Indeed, see the article on clitoris, and see one of the external links for more details on anatomy. This article and that one should be brought into sync. -- Anon.

---

Female orgasms have been observed in chimps, at least. - user:Montrealais

---

I removed this text from the main article, and am putting it here in case it is a useful trigger for more work on the Orgasm article. This line appeared below the paragraph stating "A new understanding of vaginal orgasm has been emerging since the 1980s."

we need more material on how these ideas evolved -- please contribute here if you have detailed knowledge of this subject

Tompagenet 01:05, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Here's my understanding.

• First, no-one much cares about the female orgasm (except for women, and the smarter, more experienced sort of man)
• some descriptions in the medical literature, all the bogus hysteria stuff...
• then, Freud et. al. thought that clitoral orgasm was immature, and vaginal orgasm was the "real thing"
• then feminists say that vaginal orgasm is giving in to patriarchy / male stereotyping, and that clitoral orgasm is the "real thing"
• then we have the G-spot
• finally, there is the realisation that:
  • both male and female orgasm are complex, non-pressbutton phenomena
  • individual women (or indeed men) vary widely in sexual response, but men and women are probably more similar than previously thought (homology between male and female organs, but some women appear to have small or invisible Skene's glands, for example)
  • the clitoris is a large bifurcated approximately penis-sized organ that extends deep into the body, not a tiny one that pokes out, allowing for internal clitoral stimulation from vaginal sex (and even anal sex in some cases), and is probably the primary source of female orgasm
  • female orgasm is still more related to psychology than the male orgasm, but it's a matter of degree...
  • but that there is still lots we don't know...
    • is the "G-spot" a secondary source of excitation, or is it all done by clitoral excitation, or is the stimulation of one found erotic by conditioning from stimulation of the other?
    • similarly, lots of other bits that are touched and felt can be exciting (but the same is also true in men)

To sum up:

• we know what we used to believe is probably wrong
• we know some more stuff now that we didn't used to know
• we don't know the whole story
• but at least we know that we don't know, unlike in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s...

-- Karada 00:12, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I moved the following content here, since it looked like a bad attempt by an anon at textual pr0n4ge. It could be re-written to be scientific, I suppose... Pakaran. 04:20, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Example: After gyrating inside of Jolene, Brian's penis which is turgescent, becomes ironhard. The stimulas generated by the rubbing (friction)of Brian's penis inside of Jolene's vaginal canal, causes pleasure sensors to send a final message to Brian's prostate to begin ejaculattion (slang: Coming). The ejaculate exits Brian's urethra under pressure and is shot to the top of the vaginal canal and into the uterine pool/Cervex. Where if Jolene has a simulataneous orgasm, the base of the uterus/Cervex is dipped into this pool of sperm. Thus speeding the sperm to its destination of an unfertilized egg, and removing it from the "hostile" acidic nature of the vaginal secretions.

---

Re colour of labia minora, formerly "a darker pink", has been edited to "darker". My understanding is that the labia minora are mucous membranes, and therefore pink, no matter what the person's general skin colour. Contrast with the labia majora, which are regular skin. Does anyone know better? -- Karada

See also mucocutaneous boundary -- Karada 11:55, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Further reading suggests that this is not as clear as I had thought, and that different shading of skin pigmentation in the clitoral/vaginal mucosa may occur from one individual to another. Still, at least the article text looks valid in either case. -- Karada 12:01, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

The section on non-human orgasms is a little light on evidence, and a little heavy on opinion. A lot of remarkable science has gone into the issue of non-human sexuality, and much of it is very thoughtful. Little or none of it involves masturbation by scientists, although it seems that primates are just as fond of it as humans.

There is clear evidence for male orgasm in male primates. Support comes in the form of patterns of heart rate, facial expression, ejaculation, and thrusting pattern.

Female orgasm is a much trickier subject. In some primates, females do display orgasm (evidence is similar to that of male's orgasm, but the pattern of muscular contraction is more carefully observed than ejaculation). The number is lower, than for males. And females of some species only reach orgasm in homosexual encounters.

Some of the results are controversial and are used to support (with varying degrees of success) controversial hypotheses (e.g.: females of most species cannot have orgasms, cannot have orgasms during sex, and may not even be designed to have orgasms).

This appears to be sensitive ground. None of us wants to perpetuate unfair patriarchal views concerning sexuality. But I think some of it needs to be covered. I'd like to include relevant, substantiated evidence and hypotheses. I'd like to be bold, but if I'm too bold, please keep me honest. Heads up! -- Johny 08:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Yeah.. male multiple orgasm exists.. And can without "seperation of orgasm and ejaculation", at least without awareness of such.

St Teresa Image

ecstasy is not orgasm

I would also submit that this image be removed from this page and replaced by a different one. If retained, it should not be the first/main image of the article--it could be placed in a section comparing spiritual/mystical ecstasy and orgasm, but it should not represent orgasm per se as a general phenomenon. Any article primary/head image should be one which unconditionally and uncontroversially represents the subject; the St. Theresa image does not. On the article on, for instance, Japan, I don't think we'd include -- at the top of the page -- an ancient Persian illustration of Chinese people justified by saying that Japanese are physically similar to Chinese; if we had a page on rabbits, we would not illustrate it with a hare. To be similar is completely different from being identical ~ Dpr 12:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think having a picture of a person orgasming (aka pornography) is the only way to actually represent the subject, and I highly doubt that's acceptable according to Wikipedia standards, although there are ink drawings of various sexual positions. Ecstasy of St. Theresa just happens to have one liberal interpretation of it being a sculpture that has such a connotation to it. It's imagery. I think though, no matter how I express my opinion on this view, I'm going to end up offending someone, so I'll stop. Just my two cents. Applegoddess 02:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I see the points that you guys are making, but I also think the image is good here as imagery. A google search for Google:"Ecstasy of St. Theresa" sex OR erotic OR sexual results in 524 yields, so the comparison does seem adequately established.--Nectarflowed ^T 04:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It is possible to illustrate it symbolically, but to depict it statically is essentially impossible, although a male ejaculation might be substituted. A static or animated depiction of a person during orgasm is not intrinsically pornographic, and Wikipedia is not censored. A static depiction doesn't do the topic justice, however, and in order to be balanced, it would have to depict both genders. A simple animated loop (GIF or whatnot) for each gender might work, but might add considerably to the bandwidth requirements of the page for little gain. Personally, I'm all for an animated loop, but a suitable one would need to be licenced appropriately, which means wikipedians would have to produce two loops. I doubt there are many males comfortable with having their orgasm put on this page, or a female both comfortable with the same and having orgasms that are physical enough to show up on the limited size of such a clip. And the puritans here tend to ignore the is-not-censored bit if it has something to do with nudity or sex, as opposed to violence and gore. Zuiram 19:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt there are many males comfortable with having their orgasm put on this page -- you and I seem to have met a different crowd of Wikipedians. The Wednesday Island 19:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Rutgers study

Apparently, the details of the Rutgers study were a frequent vandalism target and were subsequently removed by an editor. I have restored a heavily abridged version as a compromise. --Alan Au 07:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Tualha's changes

Reverted 68.9.244.111's changes (with some changes of my own), on the assumption that they're just more evolution-bashing (see contribution history), without factual basis, and because in one case they didn't bother to make the sentence run smoothly. Tualha (Talk) 08:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

fantasy

As with the word fantasy, as of 2005 the sexual meaning of the word orgasm has all but displaced the non-sexual meaning.

I don't think this is accurate. I'm not even sure that the word fantasy has a sexual meaning. Yes, there is such a thing as a "sexual fantasy," but of course, you need to add the word "sexual" to "fantasy."

--Henrybaker 04:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, all those Tolkien fans would be surprised that the non-sexual meaning of "fantasy" has been largely displaced. Metamagician3000 12:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

external link too commercial?

I just checked out the external link added today with the title "Women's Sexual Health - Orgasm Redefined", and it looks to me primarily commercial rather than information, and you can't get some of the informational without paying money. Not having enough experience as a Wikipedian, I don't know if it's appropriate to remove this link. Would someone else please check this out and also explain to me the principle that applies here? Thanks. Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedians call this "linkspam." It is a very common problem. The practice is to delete it on sight. The principle is Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. Wikipedia is, above all, an encyclopedia.

Here's how I handle them. This is just me, not official policy. Because it is a very common problem, whenever I see a link that is does not add obviously valuable and relevant encyclopedic content to an article, I delete it using an edit comment like "remove linkspam." That's probably the end of it about 80% of the time. Since such a deletion is easily reversible, and because it's such a common problem, just deleting it is no big deal and at this point I won't spend time trying to engage the user or anything like that.

If it is reinserted, I'll delete it again with an edit comment like "Discuss in Talk before reinserting." Then I'll add a note on the Talk page explaining why I'm deleting it, and generally try to engage the user in a discussion.

At this point, I may check the history and find out who inserted it. More often than not, as in this case, it is an anon (216.128.235.194). You may also check the user's contributions, because sometimes (not this time) it will turn out that the user is systematically adding linkspam to dozens of articles. I will attempt to leave a note on the user's talk page asking him/her to stop.

If the user reinserts the link again without engaging in discussion, I do not start a revert war. Instead, I try to get other users involved on the Talk page—just as you have done here. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Remember: Be bold when editing! --Atlantima 03:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I've placed three external links back on the article. They were here some time ago and I just thought about reviewing them. They seem to be Okay. But please take a look at them, whoever might right this.

I understand that there is a kind of war between decent wikipedia users and vandals, who like it to make fun of information so some useful links might have been deleted by mistake; or maybe not. Siliconov 12:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

At least one of them isn't appropriate. There are many sites offering "useful" information as a means of attracting people to buy their products. Those sites don't belong on Wikipedia. See WP:EL under "what to avoid". =Axlq 15:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Marijuana harmful side effects?

In the "Drugs and Orgasm" section, it is asserted without reference or evidence that "all these drugs" have harmful side effects. Considering that there are varying amounts of evidence for the harmfulness of each of these drugs, is it wise to paint them all with a broad brush? Miraculouschaos 01:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Just change it to "side effects", or redact the list to limit it to the ones with uncontroversially proven harm. All drugs, whether herbal, over-the counter, prescription or illegal, have side effects that can be annoying, and most of them can have harmful interactions with others, or harmful effects alone, or both. Some drugs of each kind have effects on orgasm, some positive, some negative. We can use a very broad brush, as long as we paint an NPOV picture, which saying "side effects" will do.

Zuiram 20:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Drugs and Orgasm

The use of tradenames for drugs should really be discouraged. I appreciate that Viagra is currently a much more known term than Sildenafil, but this is for most drugs only temporary - once the patent has run out such drugs will be sold under dozeens of different names, while the chemical / generic name remains static. Incidentally Cabergoline (mentioned in the article originally under the tradename Dostinex) is off patent. To mentyion only one tradename is pretty close to advertisement. Also many tradenames are variable from country to country. Finally all these tradenames linked to redirects, the real articles are under the generic name Refdoc 19:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The use of International Nonproprietary Name names is official policy, as far as I know. It certainly is used for the drugs themselves, as it should be. Zuiram 20:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of citation needed tags (Genetic basis of individual variation section)

Citations were required for the statement of fact that 35% of women rarely or never reach orgasm while 10% always do. I tried to find citations other than the one provided, but did not find anything as specific and with as large a population (n=4000) as the study quoted here. One study supported a (to me surprisingly high) self-reported dysfunction figure, placing it at 24% PMID 16422985. A nice help was the literature review Hayes, Richard & Dennerstein, Lorraine (2005) The Impact of Aging on Sexual Function and Sexual Dysfunction in Women: A Review of Population-Based Studies. Journal of Sexual Medicine 2 (3), 317-330. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.20356.x (full text here). I removed the tags and rephrased the section to more clearly reflect the fact that it is based on a single study. As suggested by the editor who placed the tags, these figures have not been shown to apply to all of humanity. AvB ÷ talk 13:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

Cleaned up the wording and structure of a few sentences here and there, no information was changed. --68.97.17.210 20:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Orgasms and Hair Loss?

Is there any evidence that proves that hair loss can be triggered by orgasms? Ive heard that orgasms help shine hair and then ive heard they help hair fall out. Does anyone know which one is more true or if there is evidence to back up one of them? Thanks

You might want to ask at the reference desk, or consult a doctor, but in pondering your question I discovered that orgasms have been shown to influence testosterone levels, according to that article. Which may or may not affect your hair, depending on the details. -- Beland 21:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

sex

when males havent engaged in sex for several months, is it normal that they cum fast? I have heard talking to several male friends that going without sex for several months, they tend to cum faster.

not engaging in masturbation for a while can produce the same result. don't ask. Gringo300 03:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

One publication I read gave about 15-20 seconds for men, 20-30 seconds for women under no pressure, and about 15-30 minutes for women under pressure. Given appropriate stimulation. Apart from that, you can extend the time it takes indefinitely via conscious control (calm breathing, for instance), or even the use of lidocaine (just remember to wash it off after it's started working). Zuiram 21:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

advice on achieving

I'm wondering if I could add a link to this page: http://www.loversguide.com/sex_advice/womens_orgasm.html The site, with which I do have a connection, offers all the textual information for free. Advice on achieving might be a useful addition here.

By the by, does there need to be a mention that there isn't necessarily a contradiction between the absolutely advantageous and the vestigeous - i.e. that the vestigeous can subsequently become advantageous and then positively seledcted for?

Hell no you can't! Imagine what would happen if a kid, doing a report on the subject, happens to click on the link and see a couple engang ing in anal sex, a practice considerded taboo by some cultures. In case your not from around here, that is considered PORNOGRAPHY If you put the link up, I will delete it.24.14.33.61 00:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Erik the Red 2

Where is "around here"? Also, who died and made you the voice of consensus? The Wednesday Island 02:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody did.

He should go ahead and add the link, and it should not be removed. Wikipedia is not censored for minors, as per official policy. The voice of consensus is clear on that. And there is no consensus om the exact definition of pornography.

Zuiram 21:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Zuiram, with the exception of that link's addition to the article. Though relevant, relatively, the content of that site is geared toward assistance with the subject rather than information on the subject itself. This can be paralleled to the reason articles on video games are not strategy guides. .Absolution. 20:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

foreskin

somebody told me that if you have foreskin or not foreskin that it effects how good your orgasm is. is that true?

Yes, foreskin keeps the glans more sensitive. -Iopq 18:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That claim is very controversial and is not necessarily true.CerealBabyMilk 22:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That claim is definitely not necessarily true, as you'll readily find out if you ask a guy who has had a circumcision as an adult. =Axlq 04:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole circumcision debate is very difficult to approach from an NPOV standpoint. It's codified in religious texts, for one. If it turns out circumsicion is a negative and this can be proven, we still have to wait for 5000 years of tradition to break down. Even with factual evidence, it will be too traumatic to admit we've been mutilating ourselves for millenia.

As far as I know, the issue is not the quality of orgasm. And the mutilation comment was a bit thoughtless, as there are any number of irreversible surgeries performed on infants and children, including female genital mutilation, intersex genital mutilation, and so forth, of which only a few are performed for religious reasons.

However, male genital mutilation, as you're essentially calling this, is fairly different. Apart from being medically harmless, it has a mix of positive, neutral and potentially negative consequences when disregarding the social/religious aspect..

The issue is: decreased sensitivity, leading to increased time and effort spent in achieving orgasm and (incidentally) prolonged sexual intercourse, potential irritation from some types of clothes, improved hygiene, and a tendency to require artificial lubrication for extended unprotected intercourse with a woman who has inadequate vaginal secretion (due to the uncovering of the glans for the whole range of motion).

Note that it is not only performed for religious reasons. Many hospitals do this as a routine procedure, regardless of the religious orientation of the parents (not that I support this). And when a male has too much foreskin, or too tight foreskin, a circumcision is the usual solution.

Zuiram 21:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Section suspiciously deleted

The section that existed prior to June 2, 2006 (Orgasm in post-operative transsexuals) was deleted by 66.146.132.158. It had been in the article since at least May of 2005. I'll be putting it back in if there is no disagreement over its inclusion. -- WiccaIrish 07:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

        Yes, put it back up! A person at the top of this page 

mentioned that studies are currently going on to show whether or not transexuals can reach orgasm. There is nothing wrong with it, it only gives more useful info.

Grey's Anatomy

What about that lady from Grey's Anatomy? She had unstimulated orgasms. Is that real? If it is, what's it called. --66.218.24.43 01:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd imagine it was something to do with misfiring synapses in her brain (similar to Turetts syndrome), but I don't know if the condition exists commonly enough in the real world to have a name. Runa27 23:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Male multiple orgasm section

I've reviewed and made some changes to first few paragraphs of this section. They were full of baffling advice about 'surfing the wave' and 'awakening' things, and absolutely devoid of references or citations. I've imported half a sentence from Masturbation about the possible risks of putting pressure on the perineum before or during ejaculation. This is still not citable source, but much of the text in that article has been well reviewed by knowledgable and medical people over some years now. I also removed some unreferenced material about something called "Key Sound Male Multiple Orgasm", a phrase that gets 155 hits on Google, including this page, and all its copies and mirrors. and so is entirely non-notable. --Nigelj 18:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it. My opinion is that it improves the article a great deal. It would be nice to be able to find some sources of good information that are citable. I will look and see what I can find. Atom 18:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I was one of the authors of the section you removed. I understand your reasons (somebody added some promotional material subsequently). I'm new to the wikipedia and would like advice. The phenomena described in my writing, using the Aneros (which has a wikipedia page) and the Key Sound method, absolutely provide a means for men to have successive and very intense non-ejaculatory orgasms, for a half hour, hour or more. I know from first hand experience. I would like to reinstate some of that content because it is an utterly amazing phenomenon which I believe people should know about. (I have no commercial stake in either). I am planning on writing a neutral and fact-only page about the Key Sound method, called "Multiple Orgasm Trigger for Men and Women", which is a trademark for the product. I would reference the trademark, and the forum on the site which has about 2000 messages substantiating the product. The Aneros's page describes that it has a patent. It also has a forum on its site with many thousands of messages substantiating the product. Do you feel that if I create the "Multiple Orgasm... " page and link to it and also link to the Aneros page that that would be sufficient to get a less "baffling" explication back? Niwrad 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

To have a page, the company should meet the Corporate notability guidline. If the only source for the article is the website of the seller and your own experience, it would probably be deleted. Wikipedia does not allow original research and someone with an interest in selling a product is not usually a good source for an unbiased review. I would tend to leave the section out of this article as well, unless reasonable sourcing can be found. --TeaDrinker 07:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm for pushing some limits on this section rather than trying to make it into an article suitable for a medical journal. Multiple O's have significantly enhanced my life, but I needed help to learn the techniques (like key sounds). It works by unlearning what we think we know. Wiki is a great way to encourage others to unlearn the connection between ejaculation and male orgasm and to explore the potential of this technique.

No, Wikipedia is absolutely not a great way for that. You see, WP is a reference, it has no agenda.

It tries to document noteworthy subjects with verifiable sources, without presenting any point-of-view or using original research.

Hence, once you have encouraged enough people for others to publish non-trivial independent works about this technique, or gained significant notability (again, ref the policy link), Wikipedia will document this for current and future generations. It will not be a part of making this happen until such time as it is already notable, and then only indirectly.

I would suggest looking at the WikiBooks project instead, writing about the techniques there in a manner that is suitable according to their policies and licenced under a suitable licence, and then inserting a link here. If you want to keep it commercial, however, you simply have to achieve notability before it has any place here.

Zuiram 21:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Information needed

It seems to me that the section on female orgasms contains much more information than the section on male orgasms. In the interest of fairness, it seems like much more could be said about the male side of things (e.g., there is no male section analogous to the "purpose" section for females). --HarmonicFeather 08:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed for prostate milking to heighten pleasure

A "citation needed" tag was recently removed from the sentence

When combined with penile stimulation, some men report that prostate stimulation increases the volume of their ejaculation, and provides an enhanced and more pleasurable version of the standard male orgasm

with the edit comment "The next sentence serves as the citation." However, the next sentence does not serve as a citation. It consists of two Wikipedia article links. Article links are not valid citations because Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources. On examining Prostatic milking to see whether it supports the item and whether it contains a source that could be copied into this article, it turns out that Prostatic milking does not contain any mention whatsoever of heightening pleasure, nor do its two external links seem to be relevant. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of citation

Twice now, an anon IP, 85.197.230.51 has removed a paragraph, the one that states "A recent study at the University of Groningen has indicated significant differences in brain activity during the female and male orgasm.[4] PET scans showed that both the female and male orgasm 'shut down' areas in the brain associated with anxiety and fear (the amygdala). It was found that the male orgasm focused the brain on sensory input from the genitals more than a female orgasm." with the reason that it is not a peer reviewed study.

I reviewed the citation, Male Multiple Ejaculatory Orgasms: A Case Study and it is by a world reknown Sexologist, Dr. Beverly Whipple, in a peer reviewed journal, Journal of Sex Education and Therapy. [Also see http://nursing.rutgers.edu/faculty_staff/directory/beverly_whipple]

First, Wikipedia:Verifiability says "Verifiability, not truth". Second, we don;t require that a study be peer-reviewed, we merely prefer them over less reliable sources.

The information given here may be controversial, and it may not be the view of others in her field, but in accordance with the policy of NPOV, I don't see a problem with this citation remaining in the article.

What reasoning do you have, other than you felt it was not peer-reviewed (although it appears to be)?

Please let the paragraph remain, unless you can show some reason why the citation is not reliable.

Thanks, Atom 20:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

POV

"While often likened to the male nipple, for example, anyone who has experienced or witnessed female orgasm might well be tempted to regard such comparisons, when offered in support of the vestigial argument, as somewhat tenuous."

Someone clean this up or remove it or something.

Psychology of Orgasm, People!!!!!!

I keep coming back to this site to see if anyone's added anything about the psychology of orgasm. How is it possible that this issue/aspect could be left out? Is every single contributor to Wikipedia a biology major? Every single contributer to the orgasm page at least? Orgasm is arguably as much psychologically constituted as it is physiological or anything else. I've heard that it is impossible to achieve orgasm by physical stimulation alone, just as it's impossible with fantasy alone. And this makes sense to me, you need both. Masturbating for istance: sooner or later one's thoughts drift into a realm of make-believe with a deeply psycho-sexual essence. Indulge me here: Try having an orgasm without any sense perception at all, somehow suspended in a stark empty room with absolutely NO physical stimulation, nothing to see, hear, touch/feel, smell, taste. All you have is your mind. Try acheiving orgasm in this state without touching yourself or moving your body in any way to create even self-induced friction. I would say it's impossible to acheive an orgasm thus -- that is to say, by thoughts/fantasy alone. Now, conversely, imagine that all you have is physical stimulation, and no fantasy. Maybe that part of your brain that allows you to think of things you find sexually appealing has somehow been shut off. Will you have an orgasm 'as long as you keep rubbing your genitals'? I doubt it. Sooner or later the psychology and the physiology blend, and this is the fascinating part, to me, and essential to be added here. Regardless of what your personal paraphilia is -- and I hate the 'abnormal' connotation of the word paraphilia (what is "normal" any way; especially when it comes to sex?) -- if you're devoid of the ability to 'play' in your head, you're hopeless to achieve orgasm. Again, conversely, if all you have is your mind to 'think sexy thoughts', you're getting nowhere until you start 'getting physical', by yourself or with someone else. I read the first introductory paragraph to this article and I want to puke. Then it of course goes into the standard 'this is the male orgasm' and 'this is the female orgasm' and let's look at the genetics of orgasm and talk about the possibility of someone having multiple orgasms, and this artcicle is terrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.131.215 (talk)

If you could point out some good sources on the psychology of orgasm, then I'm sure that we can incorporate them into the article.

Of course, you could always be bold and add them to the article yourself! Jakew 11:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have achieved orgasm without phantasy. Only later I read that many people phantasize so I tried it and it worked better.--Iopq 06:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What is that vast piece of nonsense in a template at the top of this section? Some un-named person wants to give notice that s/he plans on deleting the whole Orgasm article in five days unless some un-specified thing is done before then??? Tee hee. --Nigelj 20:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh! It's gone! Thanks. --Nigelj 20:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it is possible to orgasm on fantasy alone is debatable, especially when you consider the few reports about those who have had spontaneous orgasms before and you also have to think about wet dreams. However I doubt that fantasy is required when physical stimulation is applied. Speaking for my own gender as a male, I can say that if a sexually healthy man were to go weeks or months without any form of ejaculation they are very likely to experience an orgasm (and/or ejaculation) with physical stimulation alone. There isn't much you can do to test this theory since most people tend to think sexually when being physically stimulated although I am certain that it is possible to have an orgasm without fantasy. 64.126.78.83 03:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Lock the article

I suggest that an admin locks this article, because of the repeated cases of vandalism on it. Unregistered users are continuously writing nonsense, while must always track and remove it. Siliconov 11:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the vandalism is from anonymous users. Therefore a "lock" is inappropriate, but semi-protection will still allow non-anonymous accounts older than 5 days to edit the article. You can follow the directions on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to request semi-protection. Mind you, if an admin deems the vandalism to be infrequent, the request may be denied. And even if granted, the semi-protected state won't last indefinitely. =Axlq 15:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a finger works well...

and can gently stimulate the seminal vesicles, the sides of the prostate, and the spermatic cords ... as well as the frontal surface of the prostate.

The Aneros should not claim to produce contractory orgasms, as is implied by the use of the word "dry."

I suggest:

Gentle digital stimulation of the prostate, seminal vesicles, ampella, and spermatic cords provides erogenous pleasure that promotes intense multiple emissions orgasms for many men. A dildo device (the Aneros) claims to assist men in training their body to reach these kinds of orgasms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.191.213.113 (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Spontaneous orgasm

Under "Vaginal versus clitoral orgasms": "Orgasm can be spontaneous, seeming to occur with no direct stimulation. Many people find this to be quite embarrassing but enjoyable. Occasionally, orgasm can occur during sexual dreams."

Where to put this? It's not gender specific, so why put it under female orgasm (vaginal vs. clitoral)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.249.186.29 (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

As a suggestion, I've added a section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.249.186.29 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 14 January 2007.

What causes orgasm (biochemically and neurologically)?

I think this information is desperately needed. What is the exact biochemistry of orgasm? The section on male orgasm section starts:

"During orgasm, a human male experiences rapid, rhythmic contractions..."

Alright, but what causes orgasm? The stimulation of what nerve causes what chemicals to be released in the brain, the body and the genitals that leads to all that's described in the section?

Orgasm is an extremely complicated process, from the biochemical/neurological point of view. This article seems to talk mostly about the psychological/social/general knowledge side of orgasm. Tullie 02:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dry Orgasms and Abstinence

What are the general views on "abstinence" and dry orgasms? As a non-religious person myself I'd say having dry orgasms doesn't violate what I define as "abstinence" (as the time between two ejaculations) ... i mean theoretically speaking (let aside the fact that you'll fail holding off ejaculation sooner or later). 83.64.17.44 03:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What "general" views, exactly? ;)

Ejaculations are a physiologically unavoidable phenomenon in men, unless you have your prostate removed surgically, and I don't know any religions that advocate that in general.

Taoists recommend controlled ejaculations at regular intervals, but orgasms without ejaculation more frequently. This is, in their view, to avoid "spending life energy".

Catholics are supposed to be abstinent, except with their wife, and I'm not sure what their views on this is, but a minister could tell you, even if you're non-religious.

Some faiths might consider it a bad thing, and some might go for the old mara/succubus view on things, but I doubt those views are prevalent in the western world, at least.

Zuiram 22:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

How to reach female orgasm

It is the opinion of some intactivists that foreskin has up to twelve functions, such as to contact the G Spot. [2] It is the opinion of some researchers that foreskin can be a tool for intercourse. In the book Sex as Nature Inteded It author Kristen O'Hara argues that foreskin is a natural gliding stimulator of the vaginal walls during intercourse, increasing a woman's overall clitoral stimulation and allowing for the achievement of female orgasm more often and in shorter periods of time. [3] It is therefore believed by some that the absence of the foreskin and gliding action makes it more difficult, not impossible, for a woman to achieve orgasm during intercourse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.167.107.118 (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

FEMALE ANORGASMIA DURING INTERCOURSE- SOME MISLEADING INFORMATION Also, I think there is some innacuracy or at least misleading information under "Orgasmic Dysfunction" section. "If orgasm is desired, anorgasmia is mainly attributed to an inability to relax, or "let go." It seems to be closely associated with performance pressure and an unwillingness to pursue pleasure, as separate from the other person's satisfaction. Often, women worry so much about the pleasure of their partner that they become anxious, which manifests as impatience with the delay of orgasm for them. This delay can lead to frustration of not reaching orgasmic sexual satisfaction."

It is worth mentioning (for the sake of women's mental health and self-understanding) that inability for women to achieve orgasm during intercourse is most often not due to "inability to relax" but to lack of (or inadequate) stimulation of the clitoris.["The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm," Anne Koedt 1970] The proximity of the clitoris to the vaginal openning varies between women, and ability to achieve orgasm during intercourse can be correlated with a shorter distance between the clitoris and the vaginal openning[Female Sexuality, Marie Bonaparte, Grove Press], resulting in stimulation of the clitoris by the penis.

I see no sitation for the above quoted bit of gender stereotyping about female psychology either. Maybe it's the misinformation about female anatomy that is causing women undue stress, something else that Koedt refers to in "the myth of the vaginal orgasm". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rflanders (talk • contribs) 02:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Chemicals in orgasm; RE: effects of orgasm on the brain

I came here looking precisely for the same information as the posts in the subject. The original article mentioned in the second post can be found here: Brain Activation during Human Male Ejaculation

Brain Activation during Human Male Ejaculation (2003). Gert Holstege, Janniko R. Georgiadis, Anne M. J. Paans, Linda C. Meiners, Ferdinand H. C. E. van der Graaf, and A. A. T. Simone Reinders The Journal of Neuroscience, October 8, 2003 • 23(27):9185–9193

Perhaps the content can be enhansed by including these findings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.24.88 (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

POV

Is the person who wrote this article a sex addict or some thing? This article is extremely biased towards the idea that it is good to have oan orgasm anywhere, anytime. Someone please fix this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erik the Red 2 (talk • contribs)

Isn't it? ;)

Remember that, objectively speaking, they are universally positive. The rest is cultural bias, ergo POV, and not WP material. Although we should of course cover stuff about when it might be socially unacceptable to have one in western culture.

Zuiram 22:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Spontaneous orgasm - stupid sentence

...It was also discovered that some anti-depressant drugs may provoke spontaneous climax as a side effect. There is no accurate data for how many patients who were on treatment with antidepressant drugs experienced spontaneous orgasm as most were unwilling to accept the fact....

Does anyone else think that last sentence is just stupid and unnecessary? It is the equivalent of saying "There is no accurate data for how many patients experienced spontaneous orgasm because they are liars." -- Byakuren 23:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Very stupid sentence, and very misleading. If there is no source for it, I'll keep assuming that the only antidepressant that has a noteable incidence of this is amineptine, and it's unavailable now. The sentence makes this seem like a common thing with very many antidepressants, which it isn't. Period. Zuiram 22:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad reference

What, really? Reference #26: http://herbestlover.com/ Is this right? I can't see why this article is using advertising material from some random person selling an ebook as a reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadowstar (talk • contribs) 04:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Reorganization

I merged split moved and retitled alot of stuff, there was alot of repetition and messiness before hopefully this is an improvement. Velps 23:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

External Links

My links which follows the guidelines was removed as spam. This is an educational website regarding the topic of the article. Because they also offer items for commerce is it being tagged as spam, or because I added it to two other pages where it also applied to the article? I would like to repost this as it is highly informative current research that I have personall found useful. Maybe my error was that I included a link for discussion board. I saw others and thought it was acceptable. see http://www.welcomed.com 208.31.88.53 16:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Rich

I think the links may have been deleted because it appears to be a non-notable site, that is full of dubious "courses" and books. A site that offers a course consisting of "a 'hands on' demonstration of a woman in orgasm for one hour" sounds like something for a stag night in Amsterdam rather than an educational event! -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 16:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That you say this is suggests to me that your personal opinions or limitations interfering with the commitment of Wikipedia to provide access to a comprehensive view of the subject matter. Something like "A one hour orgasm, that's impossible, and they offer a course, must be a front for pornography or something." Am I close?

Not at all (whoever you are!) The wording of the "courses" just makes them sound like the sort of thing that one might see at a strip club! -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 08:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I understand your personal and some peoples doubt about the information researched and taught by the Welcomed Consensus, but I read soemwhere on their discussion board that a few years back they were approached by Rolling Stone magazine for a story on educational sex in the new millinium and upon receiving one of their instructional videos were deemed "Too Educational." I've taken the course, their is nothing dubious about it.... which is why I am advocating for the link. Thanks again. 208.31.88.53 00:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Rich

It's against Wikipedia policy to source information from or link to a commercial site. It is especially so if you should happen to be affiliated with that site. See WP:COI and WP:SPAM. If the information is valid, you should be able to find another source for it. IPSOS (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There are other sources available but are limited due to the nature of the written and two dimensional format of drawings. There are currently 4 or 5 organizations who offer the demonstration of a woman in orgasm for one hour demonstration, HOWEVER, not everyone can afford to take off work, drop the kids off at the sitters, and fly to California for the weekend. The Welcomed Consensus has made this information available to any one who has even the slightest interest. You seem to accept references of books for sale on Amazon, perhaps the the nuetral ground here is that the references and links be to these same videos available there. The down side to that I see is that the free content available directly on their website will not be on Amazon. I think one thing that is also gettin gin the way here is that I made the mistake of posting the link on several pages, perhaps this was an overzealous error on my part and conclude which article this referrence applies to most directly and go from there. 208.31.88.53 00:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Rich

You are mistaken. We do not allow linking to Amazon. IPSOS (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Continuous Orgasm

Continuous Orgasm

I was surprised to find no information in this article on continuous or extended orgasm which has been researched since the 1960's. I will be posting a paragraph soon once I collect specific references. Hope anyone with additional information, especially references will add on. 208.31.88.53 01:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Rich

If it's sourced from the spam site that has been repeatedly posted recently it will probably be removed. If, of course, there's a reputable site with that information on it, then go right ahead. -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 09:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Foot orgasm

This will sound outlandish, but I seem to remember reading a couple of times that it was somehow possible to give a woman an orgasm by stimulating a certain area of her foot/toes since there was a nerve there that led to the same area responsible for genital stimulation. Has anyone else here ever heard of this phenomena and if so do you know any links with scientific info about it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.234.157.64 (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

I have read of women orgasming purely from having their feet stimulated, but I am not sure what (if any) physical cause it has. The orgasm might stem more from the psychological aspects of the stimulation than the physical ones. Asarelah 03:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

_______________________________________ According to acupressure, some parts of a man and woman's foot correspond with the genitals; not quite sure how to word this, but when I was younger, and would wash my bum with hotter water, the part in the ball of my feet would heat up as well ahaha (and now I understand why). Same sensation is felt when I orgasm.

Christianity Today

I find it quite odd that since the most recent edit, our first reference, the one supporting the claim that "orgasm is controlled by our involuntary, or autonomic, nervous system", is not to some medical text but to an article in Christianity Today (albeit one written by an R.N.). The Wednesday Island 16:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody revert the last changes to this page?

I'm a wiki-n00b, but I do know how to check history. Someone went through and inserted the word "penis" in random places. I would revert the edits myself, but I don't know how. Thanks. Fanficbug 01:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. Thanks for catching that! -TeaDrinker 01:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Humans are not animals

Even though I have no personal problem with humans being called animals the headline ==In other animals== should be changed to ==In other species== because that is scientifically correct, I cant do it my self because my edit box for some reason does'nt display it. please forgive my grammar i'm tired. Peace keeper II 21:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Humans are animals and the current headline is better then your proposal because it only discusses orgasms in other animals, not all other species Nil Einne 12:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have exactly the same problem (although not as much in the case of animals as in the case of Apes, Great Apes; see also the talk pages there), and I have got the impression that a lot of editors have. Maybe we should discuss this somewhere central and try to sort it out. I have to excuse myself for now though. Iblardi 13:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Both humans and apes are referred to as "animals" because they are in the kingdom Animalia of biological taxonomy. "Animal" is a loaded word with certain negative connotations, but it is still the scientifically correct term. Asarelah 03:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We should pay more heed to fact and truth than emotion and connotation. Keep "in other animals." --Meridius 21:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sections that should be deleted entirely

I removed these both.[4] Here are my reasons:

References in culture

Just a list of things with the word "orgasm" in the title. This is the most useless type of trivia section, and adds nothing to the article. / edgarde 05:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsexual meaning of the word "orgasm"

The subject of this article is sexual orgasm. Alternate (and in this case metaphorical) meanings are a concern for Wiktionary. This article is not about word usage, and WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. / edgarde 05:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong "TLC documentary"

I've seen "The SEXES (with Desmond Morris,1997)" and I don't remember seeing or hearing anything like a fiber optic camera inserted into a woman's vagina while copulating, but I remember seeing it on "The Human Animal" from 1994, also presented by Desmond Morris.

Please confirm and make necessary changes.

Super Orgasm

There's a new section under types of orgasm called "Super O". I'm not sure what to specifically citate so if I give the links maybe someone could help do that. It's a term used to describe a kind of ultra intense orgasm triggered in men using meditation techniques and prostate stimulation, often using the sex toy "Aneros". It's very very new and extremely under researched, but the testimonies out there show common themes - involuntary convulsions, multiple simultaneous penile and anal orgasms, altered states of consciousness - so it's widely believed by those in the know that it's a specific orgasmic phenomenon.

If anyone can help find more info on it, specifically scientific studies and physiological explanations, that'd be GREAT. This sort of thing needs to be rigorously studied.

Seem to be a fair bit of info here: http://www.enemagra.com/ http://aneros.org http://www.doctorg.com/aneros-faq.htm even the wikipedia page on Aneros.

There is likely to be a large amount of skepticism toward the Super O, wikipedia should strive for scientific investigation immediately as this has not occurred. It appears to be extremely new and even less well studied than, say, female ejaculation. Efforts should be made to prevent this from being discounted at this early stage - there's too many testimonies out there to immediately discounted, it's profile needs to be raised quickly.

I have taken the liberty of removing it. It does not appear to represent any reasonably well researched medical state. I am willing to be shown to be incorrect, but the marketing claims of a few websites don't really substantiate much to my reading. --TeaDrinker 21:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree but there appears to be a huge amount of personal experiences of this around the web. Often on the site of the product often associated with these, but nevertheless they are open communities with independant members. The anatomical basis is obviously there. Scientific research on orgasms is pretty slow and rare, let alone on none-penile male orgasms, and this seem only ~10 years old, so it's profile has to be raised before we'll see that. It should certainly be documented by wikipedia somewhere, I am sure of that, but with as much skepticism as necessary, sure.

Here's what I propose is used, if it can be reworded to sound more skeptical and have citations:

The "Super O"

- - The Super O is a term coined by the community surrounding specifically the Aneros male prostate masturbation toy. It is used to describe a series of simultaneous penile and anal orgasms in men in quick succession following sufficient stimulation of the prostate, resulting in intense orgasmic pleasure and "out of body" psychological experiences. It is thought that it can take significant nerve rewiring in prostate region and psychological discipline training in order to sufficiently arouse the body to experience a Super O. A true Super O is widely considered to be without ejaculation, aka. "dry". The Super O however is reported to be difficult to obtain, requiring long amounts of time to rewire the protastic nerves.

- - Some common reported sensations brought on by a Super O:

- - • Quickening of pulse

- • A sudden sweat immediately prior to Super O

- • Involuntary contractions of the anal sphincter, in particularly intense Super Os, full body involuntary muscle spasms

- • Orgasmic muscle contraction in the groin and penis, identical to a regular penile orgasm but without ejaculation

- • Repeated anal orgasms as described in the section above

- • In particularly intense Super Os, the altering of ones state of consciousness

- - Some users, mostly with the use of intense direct prostate stimulators, have reported sufficient rewiring as to be able to achieve Super Os within just minutes of stimulation. Generally, most who are able to achieve Super Os can increase their strength and frequency by inducing them regularly to tone the involved muscles, and learning to maintain a highly aroused state of mind. Some report the ability to have multiple Super Os in quick succession over many minutes, even hours. Though they are also known to be very tiring.

- -

As yet very little scientific study has been conducted into the exact physiological effect of a "Super O", as non-penile orgasms in the male body is traditional highly understudied. There is some worry that the intense, unparalleled pleasure of a Super O can become psychologically addictive, with many users claiming a constant desire to attain one in everyday life and a tendency to "binge" on them for multiple hours.

I'm just trying to document what is becoming huge in certain communities and is as yet unrecognized by the mainstream. If you are skeptical, I assure you, so am I, but don't just dismiss it, help get to the bottom of it and at least cover the phenomenon of people claiming to have experienced it, somewhere on wikipedia, perhaps the Aneros page.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information, nor is it a place to synthesize scattered reports. I think the term "Super O" is a neologism, and thus should be avoided. Facts should be cited to a reliable source, which is generally published literature with no special interest in the outcome. I continue to hold this section is improper to include. --TeaDrinker 21:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No intro?

Obviously this page has been the subject of some editing issues, but I'm a little confused as to the lack of an introduction? Why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalie Erin (talk • contribs) 01:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It was messed up by vandalism from 203.59.203.109 at 11:13, 16 September 2007. Subsequent editors, instead of just reverting the vandalism, made it worse by making it look like a legitimate edit. Fixed now. Thanks, Natalie. --Nigelj 18:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha. I looked a little in the edit history, but certainly not as far back as the 16th. Natalie 14:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I use a kind of manual binary search, clicking on dates in the History page, to track these things down; sometimes back over just 50 edits, sometimes the full 500. --Nigelj 20:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it usually works quite well Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Janssen

How reliable is the work by Janssen? Janssen presents himself as an "independent researcher" (you can find his cv through the link to the cited work or by googleing), and I am not sure what credibility the journals that appear to have published some of his work give him. The work cited in this article, Growing up sexually, seems to be privately published. I am asking because Janssens work was one of the favourite sources of some combatants in a recent pedophilia related edit war, and used for backing up some rather outrageous claims. /SvNH 22:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sex Therapist

I think if anyone can or knows of one, should bring in a sex specialist. To go over this article. Since it is rated as of high importance..... which i don't see why it is. 58.7.160.12 12:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It is of high importance to the WikiProject Sexology and sexuality which seems pretty self-evident to me! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)