Jump to content

Talk:Orgasm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tue Sorensen (talk | contribs) at 03:23, 13 April 2010 (→‎Editorial Requests). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Editorial Requests

{{editsemiprotected}} Please start a section (or combine it with the "Orgasm and Health" subsection) about the negative health effects of orgasm/orgasm stress/excessive orgasm/orgasm addiction, etc. E.g. http://www.reuniting.info/science and http://www.actionlove.com/extra/over.htm

It may also be appropriate to add a section about other non-orgasmal approaches to sex such as Karezza in the "In Tantric Sex" section, or merge them in a "Non-orgasmal Sex" section. --124uJkat9 14:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

 Not done:First of all, welcome to Wikipedia! Edit requests should be used to propose simple changes. You should perhaps edit the article yourself to do what you're asking. You will be able to do that 4 days after your registration, assuming you will have made 10 edits by then. You need 4 more edits:Special:Contributions/Banjer12. But, please make sure that the sources comply with Wikipedia policies on that matter. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are some very roundabout formulations in this article which could benefit from clarification. Often, just cutting up an overlong sentence (of which there are many) into two or three will do the job. One formulation I find unlcear, for instance, is this (in referencing Morris' theory): "If males were motivated by, and taken to the point of, orgasm in the same way as females, those advantageous qualities would not be needed, since self-interest would be enough." I don't see how the self-interest is any different in either case (for men), nor therefore why it should have any effect on the advantageous qualities.Tue Sorensen (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

prolactine, ~depressed mood, ~irritation

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

The article needs visuals

The lede image is artistic, and very nice, but does not seem to represent the topic very well. We need images to supplement the article. An image in the men's section, the women's section and the lede would be ideal. A video of a woman going through this process would be fantastic.

I saw a few images in the [commons], but none that grabbed me. Does anyone else have any ideas or thoughts about this?

Involuntary stimulation

"Involuntary orgasms can happen regardless of gender." Shouldn't gender be replaced with sex? Physiological response to a situation seems to be governed more by physical sex than gender identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.122.65 (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

Please add [dubiousdiscuss] tag/template after "Masters and Johnson were the first to study the sexual response cycle", the first line of "Medical aspects of orgasm/Physiological responses/Orgasm phases and cycles". Wilhelm Reich described the cycle in Die Funktion des Orgasmus: Zur Psychopathologie und zur Soziologie des Geschlechtslebens, published 1927. English version: The Function of the Orgasm, translated by Theodore P. Wolfe, 1942. --124uJkat9 13:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took out dubious tag and reworded the sentence. I think, indeed, Master and Johnsons were pioneers in their field. Whomever wrote the entry did not quote, they gave their opinion that M&J were the first, when in fact they were one of the first to research in depth. Merely removing the inaccurate claim that they were the first is sufficient. Atom (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]