Talk:Orgasm

Article is missing info on the possibility of prepubescent children of both sexes having orgasms.

Prepubescent children have been established to be able to have orgasms prior to the onset of puberty, in at least in some percentage of both boys and girls. In boys, the orgasms have generally been reported as being dry orgasms. If this info can be properly sourced, I think something on the these two facts should be added to the article. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Your comment is similar to stating that all of our sexual activity articles are missing information on prepubescent children. They aren't. This article is missing nothing by not having information on prepubescent children. Sources usually don't focus on prepubescent children when it comes to sexual activity. With regard to orgasm, sources don't focus on orgasm in prepubescent children unless it's about child sexual abuse or child sexuality. And part of the initial "Achieving orgasm" section in the article already states, "A person may experience multiple orgasms, or an involuntary orgasm, such as in the case of rape or other sexual assault. An involuntary orgasm from forced sexual contact often results in feelings of shame caused by internalization of victim-blaming attitudes." Of course, we could add a bit to that section about child sexual abuse, which often is not forced, but I see no need to add "orgasms in prepubescent children" material to this article unless it's a bit on child sexual abuse or child sexuality at the beginning of the "Achieving orgasm" section. WP:Due weight and relevancy apply to what you are suggesting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

the article is problematic, at best

The previous discussion calls attention to some VERY deep flaws running through the article.

By placing the two concepts so close, the passage cited seems to conflate "multiple orgasm" and "sexual assault." Perhaps it could be phrased better…? In any case, I'm uncertain how that passage relates in any way to "child sexuality." I do know there's at least one anthropology work about preadolescent masturbation around the world, though even there (as I recall) there was vagueness about whether orgasm per se occurred, largely due to wide variation in definitions of orgasm, as with the Freudian school's need to consider female orgasm as a lesser (immature?) form of male orgasm. The article makes the case for twenty-six definitions of "orgasm," after all, so it at least seems this would support the existence of "preadolescent orgasm," though I don't see where age really has any significant place in this article other than the onset and decline of orgasmic ability.

The claim seems to have been made that orgasm occurring during sexual assault or molestation leads to "internalization of victim-blaming attitudes" or some such. While there's repeated yadda-yadda here about the psychological factors in causing orgasm, there's really nothing about the psychological effects of orgasm.

FWIW, "involuntary orgasm" of women is known to occur occasionally during a pelvic examination (in part set off by the patient's nervousness at such physically intimate contact by a (relative) stranger). Given this, the section seems to put a valid, common, and occasionally life-saving medical procedure on par with sexual assault. Perhaps someone who knows WTF the section is trying to say could have a whack at clarifying.

Hmm; since we already have Orgasm#Involuntary orgasm, who will make the case that there's ANY reason for Forced orgasm to have a life of its own?

Though "multiple orgasm" is mentioned repeatedly (likely undue weight), it lacks straightforward definition at first use; the reference to Kahn is workable if rough-edged. However, it does seem to equate to "one orgasm following another, separated by a refractory period" which is problematic because "refractory period" is so frightfully vague, and apparently could be anything from a few seconds to a couple of months (!!). The longer the period, the more people are "multiple," which would seem to undercut the idea that multiple orgasm is particularly notable. I could make the case that all the "multiple" stuff be blanked until a single clear solid definition (at least for the purposes of the article) of "refractory period" is presented.

This is further clouded by phrases such as the resolution phase includes a superimposed refractory period and very short refractory periods during the resolution phase without saying WTF a "resolution phase" might be. (Incidentally, the term does not appear at all in Refractory period (sex).)

Shouldn't this article be titled something more like Human orgasm? or do "lower animals" not experience anything akin to orgasm?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Weeb Dingle, for just about every article you come across...you state that the article is problematic or is a bad article. Sometimes you have some valid points. Often, though, what you consider to be problematic is based on your personal opinion rather than a Wikipedia guideline or rule. An article might need sourcing or cleanup, as the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia do, but that doesn't automatically equate to "problematic." Anyway, as is clear from this edit where I noted that significantly fixing up the article is on my to-do list, I am well aware that the article is not a some great article. But even though I have more work to do on this article, it is at least thoroughly sourced and any WP:OR (rather WP:Synthesis) in it is minimal.

Before I made this edit (followup edits here and here), the beginning of the "Achieving orgasm" section had the following two sentences placed side by side: "A person may experience multiple orgasms. They may also experience an involuntary orgasm, such as in the case of rape or other sexual assault." Although it wasn't best to place the two sentences side by side, it wasn't conflating "multiple orgasm" and "sexual assault." That initial material is just general material. A summary. The "Involuntary orgasm" section is much lower in the article, and it states "an involuntary orgasm may occur as the result of sexual assault or rape, which may result in feelings of shame caused by internalization of victim-blaming attitudes," and so on. It states that because those are facts and should be covered in this article. You stated that there's "nothing about the psychological effects of orgasm." But that specific material concerns psychological effects. As for 'involuntary orgasm' of women is known to occur occasionally during a pelvic examination (in part set off by the patient's nervousness at such physically intimate contact by a (relative) stranger)," what WP:Reliable source do you have for that claim? And as for "Given this, the section seems to put a valid, common, and occasionally life-saving medical procedure on par with sexual assault.", it doesn't. Rape and other sexual assault are about non-consensual sexual activity. A pelvic exam is not a sexual activity, and it is obviously consensual unless forced. Anyhow, yes, we can add more on psychological effects of orgasm. And, yes, the section currently mentions "forced orgasm" because an editor recently added it, but the "forced orgasm" text and the Forced orgasm article clearly are not about sexual assault. They are about consensual BDSM activity.

Defining "multiple orgasm" never occurred to me because "multiple orgasm" seems self-explanatory. Plus, it's not usually defined in sources. Like this 2002 "Human Sexuality in a World of Diversity" source, from Allyn and Bacon, page 164, states, "It is difficult to offer a precise definition of multiple orgasm." But I went ahead and added a definition for it. The multiple orgasm material in the Males section was somewhat undue since it focused on that almost as equally as the other aspects of male orgasm and since the literature on multiple orgasms is mostly about women, although, as noted by this 2010 "Our Sexuality" source from Cengage Learning, page 176, it's also the case that only a small portion of women experience multiple orgasms even though women experience multiple orgasms significantly more than men do. Per WP:MEDRS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, the sourcing was also mostly poor. But I cut down on the material and added better sourcing.

As for the definition of "refractory period," it has a clear and sourced definition in the Refractory period article. I went ahead and used that definition with its sources (which I added to the Refractory period article years ago). The duration of the refractory period ranging among individuals doesn't mean that its definition is vague. The duration of an orgasm can vary as well, though not by much; that doesn't mean that the definition of "orgasm" is vague. And as for the "Definitions" section stating "At least twenty-six definitions of orgasm were listed in the journal Clinical Psychology Review.", those are not standard definitions of orgasm. Although nipple stimulation is mentioned in the article, for example, a "nipple orgasm" or a "breast orgasm" is not a standard definition of orgasm or a common orgasm. To stress "non-standard," a woman saying she had an orgasm from brushing her teeth was not studied enough for researchers to start significantly discussing "orgasm via brushing the teeth." We should generally keep WP:Fringe orgasms out of the article. The only reason that "exercise-induced orgasm" is included is because of the content that existed on Wikipedia about it and the topic seems like something we should at least mention (though a Wikipedia article for it is not needed).

Prepubescent children... I never stated or implied that preadolescent orgasm does not exist. What I stated in the section above is the following: "Sources usually don't focus on prepubescent children when it comes to sexual activity. With regard to orgasm, sources don't focus on orgasm in prepubescent children unless it's about child sexual abuse or child sexuality." That's a fact. With the latest (aforementioned) edit I made to the article, I included "Prepubescent boys have dry orgasms." If you have WP:Reliable sources (not some Freudian theory) on "orgasms in prepubescent children," then provide them here on the talk page. We can include a bit on orgasms in prepubescent children, but, per WP:Due weight, it will not be much.

No, this article should not be called "Human orgasm." There is barely any research on orgasms in other animals. That is why the "Other animals" section is so small. If there was enough material in that section to split the article, we might split it, but the human orgasm would still be the WP:Primary topic and should therefore still be under the title "Orgasm." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I look forward to your efforts to make this into a credible article.

In my foregoing comments, I failed to call attention to Wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline, which clearly says that an article topping 60K probably should be divided and one past 100K almost certainly should be divided. Orgasm having swollen to 132K (and showing no signs of reduced tumescence) is in clear need of reduction. I was seeking understanding as to how this article could be made into an informative "general audience" piece rather than a cruft magnet that doesn't even have at least the redeeming quality of being mobile friendly. Seems like a prime recipient for boldness.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

You haven't shown how it's not a credible article. And cruft? What cruft? You pointed to issues that needed attention, which I partly addressed. The other stuff was just you stating things. As I've noted to you times before, we follow what the literature states and with WP:Due weight. Not our personal opinions. There really isn't much for me to do when it comes to improving the current state of the article. I just need to trade out some sources for better sources, cut some material, add some material, and improve the lead. And just like that, the article will be of WP:Good article quality and it will be officially named such after I nominate it for that status and a reviewer and I work on it. You can disagree with that GA tag once it's there, and you no doubt will, but it will be there.

Size? Take note that WP:SIZE is mainly about prose size. It is not about references, etc. that add on to an article's size. "Probably should be divided" and "almost certainly should be divided" are not the same thing as "should be divided." The guidance states what it states because of the exceptions. WP:Spinout (a section of WP:SIZE), WP:No page and WP:No split have guidance on splitting. As for mobile friendly, maybe if you explain, people would understand what you mean. Furthermore, like the WP:HASTE subsection of WP:Spinout states, "As browsers have improved, there is no need for haste in splitting an article when it starts getting large. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Per article length, I don't really disagree about the ubiquity of superior technology. Webpages that used to crash/lock my old laptop seem to load just fine on my little pad. That point, though, does call to question why such an outmoded standard remains to be so readily found and then taken up as an example of "a Wikipedia rule" — as I did.

Anyway, to the case at hand. The fact remains that the article is 132K. That's a big grey wall of prose, no matter whether it includes references and footnotes and illustrations and charts and such. (I happen to have Methodism open, which weighs in at 158K, and Fender Stratocaster at a mere 20K despite being culturally iconic.) The WP:Spinout you just cited still clearly says that's not just "a little overweight." It's probably not to far off to guess that the referencing and such is ~50%, so call it 66K of article. Per Wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline, that's well into DEFCON 2.

Leaving aside tech improvements, that's a BIG chunk of prose (let alone fact) for a "typical user" to slog through, much less absorb in one sitting. I don't have my notes at hand, but I'm certain I read W'pedia guidelines about readability and usability that would bear on this. And the hugeness alone of Orgasm#References does suggest (to me at least) that the article is going too deep already, exceeding its remit to be a good encyclopedic article in pursuit of being a definitive publication, and will likely continue growth. IMO, it's that density that's the sticking point.

Therefore, my suggestion that maybe Orgasm could benefit from some sort of split. I raised it for discussion because I don't yet know how I'd even recommend that could happen. Your opinion (that a split would be far premature) is certainly valid, and I hope to see other views as well.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Oops, forgot: seeing as the article winds up with the (sourced) statement that

The duration of orgasm varies considerably among different mammal species.

that seems sufficient proof that the title of Orgasm might be changed to reduce the human-centricity. Again: topic for discussion/input.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources about orgasm are about humans, so the article should simply be titled "Orgasm". And I don't think this article is excessively long. A split is not needed. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Further to the SIZE issue: Weeb, Orgasm is not at 132k, for the purposes of assessing size for a WP:SIZESPLIT. The numbers given in the page history include wiki markup, and that is not the same as prose size. Current prose size is 59,013. See Wikipedia:Article size#Markup size and WP:RPS. Mathglot (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Brody

AFAIK Brody is an AIDS denialist. He assessed the probability of getting infected with HIV through PVI to that of being struck by lightning.

"But women are not asked about rectal intercourse, there is the same problem with dissimulation, blood donors are not a representative sam-ple of the population, and many people from the risk groups use blood donations as a way to get free HIV tests," Brody says. "So I expect the true HIV rate for Americans free of injected drugs and re-ceptive anal intercourse to be far less than one in 7,500." He expects that accurate evaluation would identify no more than one HIV-positive risk-free American per million.Combining those figures, Brody says that a risk-free American who has a single act of unprotected coitus with a random risk-free partner is about as likely to be-come HIV-positive as "be struck multiple times by lightning in one year, or win several state lotteries."

— Sex, Lies & HIV TransmissionNew Book by Medical Psychologist Stuart Brody Concludes That Rectal Intercourse and Unsterile Needles — Not Vaginal Intercourse — Are Real Heterosexual HIV Risk Factors, [1]

“I’m not saying that it is impossible for unprotected vaginal intercourse to transmit HIV from a positive to a healthy adult negative partner. Anything’s possible. It’s possible to be struck by lightning. But the two risks share an analogous probability, effectively zero. If healthy, HIV-negative Americans want to worry about unprotected vaginal intercourse, they should worry about the drive over to their encounters. If their partners have never injected drugs or received rectal intercourse or blood therapy, they are more likely to be killed in an automobile accident on the ride over than they are to become HIV-positive.”

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this, Brody is fringe. So is Reich. I've stated this before years ago. But we would need a solid source to call him (or Reich) fringe. Simply having Brody in the "Other theories" subsection of "Theoretical biological and evolutionary functions of female orgasm" works for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC) Updated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Peaceray: He is so fringe that he has a conspiracy theory for why the mainstream rejects Brody. As Petra Boynton stated, "The discussion and conclusions are more of a polemic against modern sexology than an exploration of the data found in the research." Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, “An empirical study carried out in 2008 provides evidence for Freud's implied link between inability to have a vaginal orgasm and psychosexual immaturity.” Are we considering this “fringe” as well? Perhaps the section needs to be split. Peaceray (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Peaceray: Psychoanalysis is notoriously unamenable to empirical research. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)m

[citation needed] So, should I trust your opinion or that what is published in a peer-reviewed journal? I think as someone who has degrees in Psychology & Library Studies, I will take my chances with the latter until I see some reliable sources otherwise. See also pseudoskepticism. Peaceray (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Science is organized skepticism, see Mertonian norms. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Correct. However, unorganized skepticism is not science. That is what you are presenting here.

Go find some reliable sources that contradict the aforementioned empirical study. I’m calling your bluff.

Peaceray (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Peaceray, I stated that "Simply having Brody in the 'Other theories' subsection of 'Theoretical biological and evolutionary functions of female orgasm' works for now." But, yes, "An empirical study carried out in 2008 provides evidence for Freud's implied link between inability to have a vaginal orgasm and psychosexual immaturity." is WP:Fringe. There is no need to find a source that specifically contradicts Brody's empirical study, when the literature already does that. The literature overwhelmingly does not support Freud's theory about female orgasm. The literature is overwhelmingly clear that Freud has been discredited on the assertion that clitoral orgasms are purely an adolescent phenomenon and that upon reaching puberty, the proper response of mature women is a change-over to vaginal orgasms, meaning orgasms without any clitoral stimulation. Not only did Freud provide no evidence for this assertion, it, as our Wikipedia article notes, made many women feel inadequate when they could not achieve orgasm via vaginal intercourse alone. Did you read what I stated years ago?. Freud's theory was discredited many years ago. Researchers know that the reason women usually do not experience a "vaginal orgasm" (which is also commonly attributed to the G-spot) is because the vagina (as a whole) has relatively few nerve endings compared to the rich, abundance of erotic nerve endings in the clitoris. Today's evidence indicates that the clitoris is the reason that women even experience "vaginal orgasms." Like this 2012 "Discovery Series: Human Sexuality" source, from Cengage Learning, page 103, states, "There has never been any scientific proof of [the G-spot's] existence, and today research indicates that increased sensitivity in the G-spot area may actually be caused by stimulation of the bulbs of the clitoris (Folds & Buisson, 2009; Pastor 2010)." In this 2012 The Journal of Sexual Medicine review examining years of research into the existence of the G-spot, scholars stated, in part, "Attempts to characterize vaginal innervation have shown some differences in nerve distribution across the vagina, although the findings have not proven to be universally reproducible. Furthermore, radiographic studies have been unable to demonstrate a unique entity, other than the clitoris, whose direct stimulation leads to vaginal orgasm." Researchers today don't believe that the reason that women typically don't experience "vaginal orgasm" is due to psychosexual immaturity. Women are generally just too immature to orgasm vaginally? No. That's not the case.

And either way, for a topic like this, per WP:MEDRS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, we should be sticking to secondary and tertiary sources, not primary sources/single studies. And, yes, WP:MEDRS applies to this topic, seeing as the topic of orgasm is a biomedical topic. Freud's theories have largely been discredited anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I just have pause here to observe that you essentially just wrote that "An empirical study"..."is WP:Fringe" & wonder that anyone would dismiss empiricism, the basis of the scientific method, for argument's sake.

However, let me get to my main response. If we are truly going to go for WP:MEDRS & stick only to secondary and tertiary sources, then why have a section supported only by primary sources? Rather than dance around whether primary empirical studies are fringe or not, let's just remove the entire Other theories section altogether.

Peaceray (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's clear that I was not saying "an empirical study is WP:Fringe." In this case, I'm not interested in the debate about empirical studies and other studies.

As for the section in question, the first goal, per WP:Preserve, should be to see what, if any, secondary and tertiary sources comment on those aspects and/or researchers. In that case, we should preserve appropriate content with due weight. Per WP:Fringe, fringe material is allowed within reason. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)