Talk:Orgasm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Orgasm article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Orgasm is part of WikiProject Sexuality, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of human sexuality. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

On 2007-03-09, Orgasm was linked from b3ta, a high-traffic website. All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the revision history.

Contents 1 Orgasm and transsexuals 2 Necessary? 3 Removed "It is also said that the female orgasm doesn't exist." 4 Chemicals in orgasm 5 inconsistent 6 WHAT DOES MONEY AND MARRIAGE HAVE TO DO WITH PROLACTIN AND ORGASM 7 Orgasm through nipples? 8 Relevance of Peter Fendi Artwork 9 Imipramine 10 bonergasm 11 human orgasm 12 cleaning up 13 effects of orgasm on the brain 14 tidbits 15 About the "purpose" of female orgasm 16 St Teresa Image 17 Rutgers study 18 Tualha's changes 19 fantasy 20 external link too commercial? 21 blech 22 Marijuana harmful side effects? 23 Male Multiple Orgasm in boys 24 Drugs and Orgasm 25 dishwasher? what? 26 Removal of citation needed tags (Genetic basis of individual variation section) 27 Clean up 28 Orgasms and Hair Loss? 29 sex 30 advice on achieving 31 foreskin 32 Section suspiciously deleted 33 Grey's Anatomy 34 Male multiple orgasm section 35 Information needed 36 Citation needed for prostate milking to heighten pleasure 37 Removal of citation 38 POV 39 Shared physiology 40 Psychology of Orgasm, People!!!!!! 41 Still tagged as {{unreferenced}}? 42 Lock the article 43 Actually, a finger works well... 44 Spontaneous orgasm 45 Orgasm and impregnation 45.1 ================================================================================ 46 What causes orgasm (biochemically and neurologically)? 47 Dry Orgasms and Abstinence 48 How to reach female orgasm 49 RE: Chemicals in orgasm; RE: effects of orgasm on the brain 50 POV 51 Spontaneous orgasm - stupid sentence 52 Bad reference 53 Porn page or encyclopedia 54 Reorganization

[edit] Orgasm and transsexuals

The article doesn’t mention sexuality of transgender people as a part of human orgasm description. As far as I know, there are a lot of fruitful researches being carried out for today concerning transsexuals. If someone here could provide the information, that would be great, since without it the work doesn’t look complete.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] inconsistent

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

[edit] WHAT DOES MONEY AND MARRIAGE HAVE TO DO WITH PROLACTIN AND ORGASM

seriously who wrote that?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Imipramine

Removed the following:

Imipramine, a tri-cyclic anti-depressant (TCA), is known to cause spontaneous orgasms among patients who take it. ^{[citation needed]}

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)

[edit] bonergasm

Okay... Someone just filled the page with the words "BONERGASM". I think this needs a vanadalization tag or something.

hahaha that is hillarious!

[edit] 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))

[edit] cleaning up

Right, this needs cleaning up. I actually found the phrase "sheds his load in there."

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

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.

[edit] 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)

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)

Since most women can only have orgasms through oral or manual stimulation of the clitoris (which they could do all day, every day without ever reproducing), how does the female orgasm give them incentive to copulate?

216.23.105.23 00:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Does it even need to have a purpose? It is not an evolutionary disadvantage, however the compact expression of the genome is an evolutionary advantage. The clitoris is the same organ as the penis, essentially: in males, it is virilized into a penis during the first trimester. It can be argued that orgasm has a biological purpose in males by serving as an a motive for frequent copulation. In females, there is no apparent biological purpose, and it would seem to be a simple case of there being no reason for this mechanism to be absent from females while there is a reason for it to be present in males. The advantages of females in this regard can probably be attributed to such things as prolactin insensitivity due to higher baseline prolactin levels and no evolutionary reason for the development of a homeostatic feedback system. Zuiram 18:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] blech

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

• 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)

Actually, who wouldn't want to have multiple orgasms? The sex is way better that way, when both parties can keep going, and both parties kan enjoy themselves fully throughout it all. I think that Scorpionman's comment might be confusing two other effects: male post-orgasm fatigue and heightened penile sensitivity post-orgasm, both of which are related to, but independent of (IIRC), the orgasm refractory/resistent period in males. The fatigue goes away for me when I am being treated with the dopaminergic class of drugs, along with the refractory period, while the heightened sensitivity has shown itself resistent to being influenced. All these factors show great interindividual variation, however, and most do not find it directly painful to continue intercourse (or whatever) post-orgasm AFAIK. For those that do, lidocaine deals with this, if used properly. Either way, I doubt that the male organ is more sensitive, even post-orgasm, than the clitoris, so it can be a good wake-up call slash hint as to how to treat the female partner. :) Zuiram 20:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Male Multiple Orgasm in boys

im a 14 year old boy and i want to know how i can acctually have an orgasm from people who have 'experience'

Hrm. Good question. Tough one. It'll take us four years to find an answer. Chip Unicorn 23:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No. It'll take us four years before we can tell him how to have sex, due to Florida law.

With regards to having single ones, the article masturbation pretty much covers what can be legally suggested (come on, like we didn't do that ourselves, pfft). As for multiple orgasms, which I think is what he asked about, the best answer might be "Google is your friend", "drugs should not be used for this at your age", and "it takes hard work (that is, training) and a fair bit of time, but will be easier for an adolescent male than an adult male, due to hormonal differences shortening the orgasm refractory period and increasing frequency of arousal.

Hope that clears everything up without straying into judicially gray or socially unacceptable territories. Either way, Wikipedia is the wrong forum to ask for advice.

Zuiram 20:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC) (Who has not watchlisted the page; replies to user talk page preferred)

[edit] 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)

[edit] dishwasher? what?

in the final sentence of the clitoral vs vaginal orgasm section, there's a statement that women sometimes experience orgasm when "walking through the kitchen when the dishwasher is on the dry cycle." is this supposed to be a serious and factual statement, meant to indicate the apparent spontaneity of orgasm in some situations, or is it the result of subtle vandalism? because it just sounds kind of silly to me.

Looks supicious to me. I know some women can get off via sitting on the clothes washer but never heard of merely walking by the dishwasher to be enough. :) Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 03:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to this. Not only does it not show up in any google searches (except in reference to this page) but it doesn't even make much sense -- a dishwasher on dry is pretty quiet and doesn't even shake around like one on wash or rinse does. A clothes washer on spin cycle is another matter entirely of course...Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / fafafafaffafaf!~contribs) 05:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please... please tell me that you guys understand that it was a deliberate reference to the misleading and openly sexist missinformation commonly distributed as fact in days past in an effort to sexualy opress women into traditional femenine roles.

This is not the place for snarky references or proselytizing. --Ntg 05:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Shared physiology

Why is there reference to "which Jeff gave to Matt last night after I double-monkey wrenched him for 3 hours." in here?

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.131.215 (talk • contribs).

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)

[edit] Still tagged as {{unreferenced}}?

I'm surprised that the article is still tagged as {{unreferenced}}. Back in August, this may have had some basis, but looking now, there are no less that 25 citations in the references section, and at least one that hasn't been formatted that way. Most of the main points and assertions seem to be backed by a reference. How many more references do we want? I propose removing the tag. Any objections? --Nigelj 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been over a month and no-one has made any case for why it should be so tagged, so I just removed the tag. --Nigelj 18:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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.

[edit] Orgasm and impregnation

What is the role of the orgasm in impregnation? Is it possible for women to become pregnant without reaching an orgasm? Do orgasm's help the onset of dropping an egg into the filopean tubes? Or does impregnation have nothing to do with pregnancy? I just have to know.Rfwoolf 12:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it further. My opinion is that female orgasm has no role in releasing the egg, or anything like that. (During successful fertilization, the egg has often already been released when intercourse occurs) Some think that it may have a role in helping the semen into the uterus. Many feel that Orgasm acts as a positive response to the coitus behavior, encouraging repetition, and so increases the chances of reproduction. Atom 13:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... interesting. If you'll pardon my ignorance up till now -- it just seems that the male has to orgasm to ejaculate and subsequently release the sperm, one could have assumed that the female may have needed to orgasm too for a variety of reasons (even though I'm well aware that couples rarely climax at the same time -- nonetheless many out there may assume this is necessary for pregnancy). It also brings into question the purpose of female ejaculation, of which there seems to be none. Rfwoolf 16:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

During Orgasm the muscles in the side of the vagina contract in a manner that helps to force the sperm out of the penis and up into the uterus.

[edit] ================================================================================

Like so.

Other theories have been proposed based on the idea that the female orgasm might increase fertility. The 30% reduction in size of the vagina could, for example, help clench onto the penis (much like, or perhaps caused by the pubococcygeus muscles), which would make it more stimulating for the male (thus ensuring faster or more voluminous ejaculation). The British biologists Baker and Bellis have also suggested that the female orgasm may have an "upsuck" action (similar to the esophagus' ability to swallow when upside down), resulting in the retaining of favorable sperm and making conception more likely.[15] They posited a role of female orgasm in sperm competition.

Madking 19:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] Porn page or encyclopedia

Who put the files with girls that are supposed to be experiencing an orgasm into this article? What's the point? Let 13yr old kids hear women moaning? I dont think this is the kind of content an encyclopedia needs.
There also are a lot of sections in this article that sound more like an advertisement than anything else. Like people wishing the stuff they saw in some porn movie is actually being put into practise by "real" couples.
So could somebody please take care of this article and let it sound more professional. --85.176.225.84 01:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I found this article extremely informative. Only a Christian would conflate information with pornography, so, you and your 13-year-old kid have my pity. Audio recordings of female orgasm are slightly questionable, but only because video would be much better. Even in modern society, many men still have no idea as to what a genuine female orgasm is, and how to tell if their partner is having one. Furthermore, orgasm is a topic that is still difficult to talk to other people about, so again the information in this article is very useful, especially as regards statistics and observed pratices. So please, STFU. No one is forcing you to read articles about sexuality in the first place, and if the prospect of your children reading such is worrisome, restricting their internet browsing is your responsibility and not ours. Thanks, and good luck kicking those antiquated delusions. 24.95.48.112 00:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not very civil, but anyway... Whether people are able to tell whether a female orgasm is genuine or not doesn't matter. If solid, verifiable sources give good information about this, representative of the widely variable female population, then we can use that. Otherwise, there is nothing WP can or should say about it. Either way, being able to tell benefits no-one; if you suspect you're doing a poor job, communicate better, otherwise treat it as real. Anything else just puts unneccessary pressure on the girl, preventing her from having real ones (most girls fake it occasionally, at the very least). Also, males can fake them too, and I know of a few who do this for various reasons. Zuiram 22:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for insulting me and displaying Christians as idiots. BTW, I'm not Christian and I dont have a son either. Only thing I agree on is the fact that many men have never seen a real orgasm and that sex is being talked about too little in society. I dont get what u mean by antiquated delusions, but u dont seem to be putting any emphasis on discussing the topic anyway, instead you're just making up a story of a conservative Christian daddy and go on crying about it. Good job, way to sound stupid. Still think the article needs major corrections. --85.179.51.207 23:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The three sound files are of such a poor quality, of questionable origin, they sound like they were covertly recorded, they do not have any release details of those recorded and serve no real purpose. There's no attribution that describes the "normal" female vocalisation and presenting these as an example of such is misrepresenting the range of such. --Monotonehell 12:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur there seems to be no objective purpose to having the sound files on this page. There is no actual information being provided by the sound bytes. --Neome21 11:20, 13 March 2007

I would like the user who responded to the first post to take a look at Racism

[edit] 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)