Talk:Orgasm

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

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

--BlackGriffen

  WOAH!  Hold the phone!  Female orgasm is not limited to humans--saying so only displays our

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)[reply]

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

About the "purpose" of female orgasm

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

blech

Who would want to have multiple orgasms anyway? Scorpionman 22:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People who like to have more of things that they like (of whom there are many)
People who buy books about how to have multiple orgasms, of which there are several

Jeremy J. Shapiro 22:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Male Multiple Orgasm in boys

When I was about 8 to 10 years old, before I ejaculate, I could achieve genuine multiple orgasms. But interestingly they did not come from pre-meditated masturbation.

What happened was that there is an itching feeling in the pubic area, and I also felt desperate at the time because I have broke some rules during class and held for a detention. These two feelings coupled together gives me the "twitching" feeling in the stomach, which, when descended to my pubic area, all of a sudden made my penis totally flaccid in a fraciton of a second (where it was erect a moment ago). And then my penis went erect again and I felt the inevitable urge to pee, which I was able hold back, it was at this moment that the massive waves of orgasm sets in, (VERY VERY different than the waves of ejaculate I experience now, I would say 3 orders of mangnitude more pleasurable).

The best thing is that after those massives waves subside, my penis shows no signs of refractory, all I have to do is squeeze my thighs with my penis in between (much like women squeezing their thighs to masturbate) and the massive orgasms would be back. ANd I could do this as many times as I want.

But unfortunately I didn't know what orgasm is at the time and did not learn to enjoy these incredible sensations. I have never experienced multiple orgasm after I hit 10, and particularly after I started to ejaculate, MMO is over.

(Sigh) I want my multiple orgasms backkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!!!

I heard that there are electronic dildos that you hook up to stereo systems that can give you multiple orgasms, is there any basis of truth to that?

70.50.238.47 20:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 teh 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)[reply]