The story of Ohh!

May 2, 2004 5:21 AM

The story of Ohh!For men it is quick, easy and essential for reproduction. For women, it is slow, difficult and purely for pleasure. Yet despite such differences, it brings the sexes together and is the basis of the monogamy that distinguishes us from other animals. In his new book, Jonathan Margolis examines the phenomenon of the orgasm
posted by Postroad (74 comments total)

the monogamy that distinguishes us from other animals

Er, many animal species are monogamous while many - quite possibly most - humans are not.
posted by Ryvar at 5:26 AM on May 2, 2004

Women have orgasms?
posted by RavinDave at 5:34 AM on May 2, 2004

Women have orgasms?
Its like that old philisophical question: are women actually thinking, conscious beings like you and me, or are they mindless automatons following a set of programmed rules? They say they are conscious, but how can we really know?
posted by Meridian at 5:47 AM on May 2, 2004

This Margolis chap - he's just a Johnny-come-lately.
posted by Pericles at 6:07 AM on May 2, 2004

Actually, women's orgasms are not solely for pleasure, nor are men's essential to reproduction. The contractile waves produced in women's orgasms aid fertilization. In the second case, it's ejaculation that's essential for reproduction, which is not physiologically inseperable from orgasm.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 6:13 AM on May 2, 2004

For women, it is slow, difficult and purely for pleasure

only aprox. 46% of women have difficulties, the rest of us are easily popping them off in multiples that would make some of you weep with despair at not being us. and what lil miss cranky said. IIRC, those contractile waves cause the cervix to suck up sperm, increasing chances of conception. i've seen film footage of it, it's pretty neat.
posted by t r a c y at 6:38 AM on May 2, 2004

those contractile waves cause the cervix to suck up sperm, increasing chances of conception. i've seen film footage of it, it's pretty neat.

We're seeing a lot of stuff now that porn directors have their hands on those little fiber optic cameras.
posted by Hildago at 8:00 AM on May 2, 2004

True enough, hildago, but as Robin Williams put it "You're not meant to see what the goodies are doing."
posted by jonmc at 8:21 AM on May 2, 2004

Blatant ripoff of the original S/M story.

Bad writer! Go stand in the corner.
posted by spazzm at 9:04 AM on May 2, 2004

Er, many animal species are monogamous while many - quite possibly most - humans are not.

Ryvar, the apparrent monogamy of certain species of animals stands up to scrutiny about as well as most claims of fidelity.

Romantic notions of faithful pair bonds in swans and such have turned out to be wishful thinking. The pair bonding does occur but so does a little sampling on the side...

So rather than it being a human failing, it appears to be a failing of sexually reproducing organisms (though it obviously contributes to reproductive sucess).
posted by srboisvert at 9:17 AM on May 2, 2004

I would think that if anything, it's the basis of non-monogamy. I mean, if it weren't for orgasms, wouldn't monogamy be easy?
posted by bingo at 9:19 AM on May 2, 2004

i've seen film footage of it, it's pretty neat.

C'mon, Bittorrent! Don't fail me now...
posted by Cyrano at 9:23 AM on May 2, 2004

easily popping them off in multiples

kitten killer
posted by stbalbach at 9:25 AM on May 2, 2004

For women, it is slow, difficult and purely for pleasure

only aprox. 46% of women have difficulties

posted by t r a c y

I'm unsure what study you're quoting, nor am I certain about why this site believes 70% of women don't reach orgasm through intercourse alone or why this site thinks that number should be 50%. Numbers vary widely partly because the topic of female orgasm is still widely considered taboo and the subject of the statistics is not measurable in any traditional manner.

Some women actually have something refereed to as orgasmic dysfunction, but the number is believed to be quite low and not dissimilar to men who experience erectile dysfunction. This medical dictionary states it's somewhere between 10 and 15% of women have primary orgasmic dysfunction, but 33% to 50% of women experience orgasms infrequently or are dissatisfied with how often they climax. The same page attributes 90% of all orgasms to psychological not physical stimulus.

Take these numbers with a grain of salt, but your characterization of the remaining 54% of the women as popping off orgasms like candy is simply false. This gentlemen doesn't seem to have his numbers right either.

Quoting the site:

Recent statistics indicate, however, that less than a third of women regularly achieve a single orgasm and, of the suffering majority, a massive 70% have never achieved an orgasm during intercourse!

Multiple orgasms in women are more frequent than in men, but it's still considered more of a gift or a learned skill than it is common place. Some surveys put the number between 10 and 15%, but I am having trouble locating any studies.

it's ejaculation that's essential for reproduction, which is not physiologically inseparable from orgasm.

by LittleMissCranky

That's entirely true. Furthermore, not only do most men not have separate orgasms and ejaculation, most men don't know it's possible.
posted by sequential at 9:32 AM on May 2, 2004

So rather than it being a human failing, it appears to be a failing of sexually reproducing organisms (though it obviously contributes to reproductive sucess).

Interesting that you'd say it's a failing. Doesn't it only appear to be a failing because of the way our society is set up?
posted by Hildago at 9:34 AM on May 2, 2004

And for the record, there are two popular definitions for multiple orgasms.

1) Being able to reach two orgasms in one session

2) Being able to have orgasms in rapid succession.

The second definition seems to be a corollary to the first, though anyone who has had a tidal wave of orgasms will tell you they are two separate phenomenon.
posted by sequential at 9:36 AM on May 2, 2004

>This is because only a long-term, stable male partner
> will know how to make a particular woman climax properly.

Or one who actually listens and pays attention to his partner. I'd love to see a study proving my theory that audiophiles make better lovers...

Perhaps the author is referring to a particular woman he knows who has trouble climaxing properly?
posted by woil at 10:08 AM on May 2, 2004

...or one who is with a woman who orgasms easily in general.
posted by bingo at 10:19 AM on May 2, 2004

"Multiple orgasm" has a particular meaning that is not synonymous with "more than one orgasm in a session". Men invariably have what is called the "refractory period" which is an interval of time after orgasm, and a physiological process, during which an orgasm is not possible. Women, on the other hand, can have sequential orgasms with no refractory period.

Statistics concerning anorgasmia in women vary widely. About the only safe determination one can make is that A) American women are much less likely to be anorgasmic today than they were fifty years ago; and, B) anorgasmia in women is very age-sensitive, with younger women (teens to mid twentieis) much more likely to suffer from anorgasmia than older women (late twenties to forties). Thus, anecdotal evidence from one's cohort should not be considered representative of all women.

Aside from the contractile waves mentioned above, the evolutionary "purpose" of female orgasm is unknown. But it's dubious to assume that since it's unknown, it doesn't exist. Furthermore, orgasm is not physiologically unitary and one should be careful about generalizing about "it".
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:24 AM on May 2, 2004

I'm unsure what study you're quoting

it's a planned parenthood study.

your characterization of the remaining 54% of the women as popping off orgasms like candy is simply false

not where i live, thank goodness. but honestly, i was being flippant and having fun bragging, which i thought was fairly obvious. mind you, i've been a (volunteer) research asst at pp for several years and i have to say that canadian females are pretty darn healthy when it comes to getting their cookies. apparently things aren't so rosy for our american sisters.

kitten killer

hmmm. 4 of my cats died recently.
posted by t r a c y at 10:25 AM on May 2, 2004

Perhaps the author is referring to a particular woman he knows who has trouble climaxing properly?

posted by woil

Numerous authors on the topic of female orgasm have been reduced by their critics to nothing more than misogynists.

This is because only a long-term, stable male partner
will know how to make a particular woman climax properly.

That doesn't account for the sexually satisfied lesbian, bisexual and single women of the world. One could argue the opposite is true - a man has little, if anything, to do with a woman's ability to orgasm.
posted by sequential at 10:26 AM on May 2, 2004

In fact, most clinical studies show that anorgasmia in women does not strongly correlate with the quality of the partner's technique. It just doesn't. It does, however, correlate strongly to A) whether the woman masturbates; and B) her attitudes regarding female sexuality. (The latter is interesting because there's a mother/daughter correlation for anorgasmia.) Also, it can be a biological pathology, sensitive to many factors, just as impotency in men is.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:38 AM on May 2, 2004

sequential: Furthermore, not only do most men not have separate orgasms and ejaculation, most men don't know it's possible.

I've never heard anyone male claim that it is possible, unless they were doing so in front of a girl they wanted to impress, and then later admitted that they were hedging their definition of "orgasm."

Sure, it's possible to be brought to the point of orgasm/ejaculation multiple times, and if you can keep getting it up, you may reach a point at which you have another orgasm, but you don't have any fluid left to ejaculate. But this isn't a separation so much as one of the two acts just isn't possible anymore.

One could argue the opposite is true - a man has little, if anything, to do with a woman's ability to orgasm.

Hey, now you're talking! Can you link to a study on this? I'll print it out and keep it in the drawer of the nightstand.

Similarly, you can ejaculate to a certain extent before you have an orgasm. But neither of these acts is really analogous to multiple female orgasms. If you know of a way for a guy to have an orgasm before, and independent of, his first ejaculation of a "session," then by all means tell me and I'll try it out next time I'm in Thailand.
posted by bingo at 10:39 AM on May 2, 2004

Not all wet dreams are accompanied by an orgasm. Not only that, but, awake, I've ejaculated without having had an orgasm₁. The two are intimately connected but are not inseperable.

1 There's a point at which ejaculation is absolutely inevitable for men. However, orgasm is not inevitable at that point.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:45 AM on May 2, 2004

whoops, formatting mess on that last comment. small text in the middle is meant to be italics, and i basically pasted one comment in the middle of another. doof.
posted by bingo at 10:46 AM on May 2, 2004

bingo - if you pinch off the... vas deferens (?? yes, no. i often forget the proper names) with either fingers (hers, or yours during fellatio or a hand job, or whatever) or a cockring you can orgasm without ejaculating, and then maintain your erection for a good long time before finishing off with both (org & ejac).
posted by t r a c y at 10:48 AM on May 2, 2004

not where i live, thank goodness. but honestly, i was being flippant and having fun bragging, which i thought was fairly obvious.

posted by t r a c y

It is (now) obvious that you were speaking lightly, but I did misread you. For some reason, I first read it as a statement of fact. My point wasn't to be pedantic or argumentative, but to point out using hard numbers when discussing female orgasm is not exactly fair.

As Ethereal Bligh points out:

'orgasm is not physiologically unitary and one should be careful about generalizing about "it".'

it's a planned parenthood study.

psted by t r a c y

I have no experience with their private research, only their clinics and educational outreach programs. I find that Planned Parenthood generally does good work and would be interested if you have any references, like a link.
posted by sequential at 10:50 AM on May 2, 2004

Ethereal Bligh: granted on all counts. But, do you think it's possible to have an orgasm (awake) without ejaculation? And as I said above, I don't mean when you've already ejalculated twice in the past hour or so.
posted by bingo at 10:51 AM on May 2, 2004

Bingo, there's a tantric method reputed to achieve that, but I have no experience of it first hand and so cannot make a judgment.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:57 AM on May 2, 2004

t r a c y: if you pinch off the... vas deferens (?? yes, no. i often forget the proper names) with either fingers (hers, or yours during fellatio or a hand job, or whatever) or a cockring you can orgasm without ejaculating

Sorry, but I don't count that. I've done it, and yes, the guy doesn't ejaculate, in the sense that the fluid does not actually leave the body, but the mechanism has still been triggered, i.e. it psysiologically feels like you have ejaculated. It's like refusing to let someone's mouth open when they're trying to throw up, and then saying that you prevented them from vomiting.

on preview: Ethereal: Yeah, I too have heard tell of this tantric method. If I were to ever try it and acheive it, and it felt anything like what I now consider "orgasms," I will be surprised.
posted by bingo at 10:59 AM on May 2, 2004

sequential: Furthermore, not only do most men not have separate orgasms and ejaculation, most men don't know it's possible.

This happens to me on occasion, although it is not something that I can yet control. The first time it happened was quite by accident when the door I was leaning against while receiving oral attention suddenly gave and I ended up flat on my back having an orgasm but now ejaculating. Over the last couple of years I've experienced it a few dozen times, but by and large it's been solo or oral work that does it.

The first few times it happened my wife thought I was trying to 'fake' it, but physically it felt like an orgasm, just very little of the traditional physical evidence of one. The only pointer I can offer to others is that you should try to forget that you can ejaculate and just enjoy the orgasm feeling.
posted by DragonBoy at 11:04 AM on May 2, 2004

I've never heard anyone male claim that it is possible

posted by bingo

Instead of assuming I'm wrong and taking cheap shots, perhaps you can learn something. There is a great deal of literature on the topic.

Hey, now you're talking! Can you link to a study on this? I'll print it out and keep it in the drawer of the nightstand.

posted by bingo

Are you implying that a woman can not orgasm without a man? My point is that there doesn't need to be a study. Women can and do climax without men. End of story. Men are not a required ingredient in this recipe.

Similarly, you can ejaculate to a certain extent before you have an orgasm. But neither of these acts is really analogous to multiple female orgasms. If you know of a way for a guy to have an orgasm before, and independent of, his first ejaculation of a "session,"

posted by bingo

I can recommend this book. It is not as uncommon as you think. You may or may not be able to learn it, but some can and do. In my experience, the ends did not justify the means. Oh sure, it's a neat trick at parties...

if you pinch off the

posted by t r a c y

That does not work efficiently. It may stop some or all of the semen from temporarily escaping, but ejaculation still happens. I'm not sure what happens to the semen if it does not come out after doing this, but that's another topic. (From experience, semen comes out if you only press while orgasming. If you hold it for a good length of time, the semen disappears back into you.)

On the other hand, some find doing this increases the pleasure they experience from orgasming.
posted by sequential at 11:16 AM on May 2, 2004

(Sorry for the double post, but my comment was getting long.)

Take this for what it's worth, but as a male, I've experienced a feeling similar but more powerful than what I associate with ejaculation. The actual act that caused it did not involve any genital stimulation whatsoever. I did not have an erection, though I was highly aroused. It felt good for a long period of time and then, for lack of a more poetic way of describing it, various muscles in my body spasmed rapidly for several minutes. It was the most intensely pleasurable experience I've ever had.

There was no doubt I had an orgasm, but there was neither evidence or traditional stimulation. It was not a seizure.

I've never had a similar experience, though I've tried various methods described by books I've read on the topic. Nearly every book I've read required genital stimulation, which translated into a very different experience.
posted by sequential at 11:25 AM on May 2, 2004

On the other hand, some find doing this increases the pleasure they experience from orgasming.

they most certainly do. and it can be done very effeciently. you do have to pinch it off for a decent amount of time in advance of orgasm.

It's like refusing to let someone's mouth open when they're trying to throw up, and then saying that you prevented them from vomiting.

odd then how so many men enjoy it, unless your analogy hints at a discomfort that's not actually there, or at least not for everyone who does it.

to point out using hard numbers when discussing female orgasm is not exactly fair

i heartily agree.

my particular branch of pp doesn't have any research online currently. the last provincial gov't took away every cent of our funding just as we were going to get internet access and build a comprehensive site. that's when i went from being a paid staff member to a volunteer. all i have at hand personally is hard copy of which i'll ask you to forgive me for taking a pass on scanning, for the time being.

i'm being an extremely bad girlfriend right now playing online when i should be getting ready for our trip to montreal. i'm supposed to be downstairs installing a new windshield wiper motor in our van so we can drive safely in all this rain. so i'm outta here for now.
posted by t r a c y at 11:36 AM on May 2, 2004

i'm supposed to be downstairs installing a new windshield wiper motor in our van

Why can't I ever met women like this?
posted by SPrintF at 11:49 AM on May 2, 2004

It's her new hobby, this morning she learned how to replace the van's rear brakes! Our friend Stuart who's a mechanic walked her through it. I'm thinking very soon we need to buy her a cute little orange mechanic's jumpsuit :D

OK, sorry for the derail. Back to your orgasms!
posted by zarah at 12:10 PM on May 2, 2004

Instead of assuming I'm wrong and taking cheap shots, perhaps you can learn something.

I don't see how it's a cheap shot. It's just the truth. I have indeed never before heard a male claim that it was possible, except when they later admitted in male-only company that they were lying. If your mileage varies, goodie for you.

Are you implying that a woman can not orgasm without a man?

God, no. I was saying, as a joke, that I would keep the proof that the two have nothing to do with each other near my bed, so I can show it to women as evidence that if they didn't come, it was their fault, not mine.

t r a c y: odd then how so many men enjoy it, unless your analogy hints at a discomfort that's not actually there, or at least not for everyone who does it.

I agree, it's odd that many man enjoy it (although, despite having a pretty liberal lifestyle and a lot of friends into different things, I have never had another guy tell me in person that he actually enjoys that). And no, in my case anyway, the discomfort was really there.
posted by bingo at 12:15 PM on May 2, 2004

God, no. I was saying, as a joke

posted by bingo

I'm a bit humor impaired. Sorry if I came across as defensive.
posted by sequential at 1:35 PM on May 2, 2004

those contractile waves cause the cervix to suck up sperm, increasing chances of conception. i've seen film footage of it, it's pretty neat.

I've seen this too and, so help me, it reminded me of someone playing Hungry Hungry Hippos.
posted by filmgoerjuan at 1:43 PM on May 2, 2004

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the Aneros yet. It's a device that causes sexual stimulation in men by massaging the prostate. I don't have one and don't really plan on getting one, but a friend who has it raves about it (perhaps a bit too much). He reports the best orgasms he's ever had, with no erection, genital stimulation, or ejaculation. It seems to be based off of a "feedback loop" of sorts.
posted by zsazsa at 1:47 PM on May 2, 2004

In men, big toes often stiffen as their little toes twist.

Heh, come to think of it.
posted by abcde at 3:53 PM on May 2, 2004

bingo, I promise you that I have multiple orgasms, sometimes with and sometimes without the final orgasm also accompanied by ejaculation. I know of one other man who is also multi-orgasmic. That you weren't aware of it isn't to say it does not exist. I'm also certain that if you do some web-crawling, you'll find out how men can achieve multi-orgasmic sex.

Now, all that aside, I have to say that I'm always stunned by any statistics which indicate there are women who aren't having orgasms. No male who wishes to be a man would ever allow his lover to go un-orgasmed. It's simply unconscionable.

There are times I yearn to be a sex educator. In this day and age there is simply no reason for anyone to ever have unfulfilling sex.

i had an orgasm having my back scratched once. my god, a good backscratching is a mighty fine thing!

i won't share the story about the chocolate dessert crepes, though...
posted by five fresh fish at 5:16 PM on May 2, 2004

Any man who claims to have never been with a woman who's ever been anorgasmic is A) very limited in experience; B) very, very lucky; C) a liar; or D) so smug and uncommunicative in bed that his lovers have felt the need to fake it just to get the damn thing finished.

The majority of women are irregularly orgasmic, most of them needing direct clitoral stimulation for an orgasm. Even among those who require less direct and intense stimulation find that a significant portion of the time they do not have orgasms.

While you can be a crappy enough lover that a woman's orgasm is quite unlikely; it's not the case that you can be a good enough lover to guarantee an orgasm. If you assume that all women have orgasms and that you are a high-quality lover who always delivers orgasms, what you'll get are lovers who fake orgasms.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:47 PM on May 2, 2004

"Most of them needing direct clitoral stimulation..."

Well, duh. What kind of idiot man isn't going down on his lover? My god, unless you're a neanderthal wham-bam type of reprobate, you gotta be giving at least thirty minutes of tongue-loving. The ol' in-out doesn't get to happen until she's climaxed, if not outright orgasmed. And once you've coupled, that ol' clit had better be given a few more strokes.

I swear, any woman who isn't getting an orgasm is not getting good sex. Either kick your man's ass out of bed until he understands that servicing you is his duty, or start telling him exactly what to do.

Life's too short for lousy sex. Don't settle for it.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:55 PM on May 2, 2004

five fresh fish: Honestly, I don't care if you've had what you perceive as multiple orgasms. The fact that you think this has happened to you while you've had your back scratched only demonstrates that our definitions of orgasm are not the same.

And seriously, your stupid pussified self-congratulatory discourse on oral sex reads like something written by a nineteen year old virgin trying to get a sympathy fuck. Thirty minutes every time? "Climaxed, if not outright orgasmed?" Are you adding yet another level of subtlety to the meaning of "orgasm"?
posted by bingo at 8:12 PM on May 2, 2004

Bonobos and stump-tailed macaques have orgasms, too.
Why shouldn't you?

sorry
posted by kablam at 8:24 PM on May 2, 2004

1) bingo, I can assure you that orgasm and ejaculation are very physiologically seperable. While I can't help you out with how to orgasm without ejaculating, I can tell you that a study done at my organization (a med school that shall remain nameless) has recorded a statistically significant number of of male ejaculations that were not accompanied by any of the biochemical indicators of orgasm.

2) I agree that a woman's propensity for orgasm is much, much more dependent on the woman than on her partner. On the other hand, a crap partner can ruin the most orgasmic woman. YMMV.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 8:25 PM on May 2, 2004

Hmmmm... not really into guys, but if I had to choose, it would be five fresh fish EVERY TIME over bingo. Rock on, brother!
posted by kamikazegopher at 9:06 PM on May 2, 2004

five fresh fish: My god, unless you're a neanderthal wham-bam type of reprobate, you gotta be giving at least thirty minutes of tongue-loving. The ol' in-out doesn't get to happen until she's climaxed, if not outright orgasmed. And once you've coupled, that ol' clit had better be given a few more strokes.

Well, I guess the 'step 1, step 2, step 3, one-size-fits-all' approach is one way of going about it. Or you could, y'know, actually communicate with the person in question and find out what she, as an individual, wants -- which may even change from one sexual encounter to the next. Crazy, I know.

This is just one woman's opinion, but I've always found the notion that sex is pointless unless all participants orgasm to be oversimplified at best and juvenile at worst. Don't get me wrong, I like orgasms... who doesn't? But I've also had many wonderful, meaningful, and intensely pleasurable sexual experiences without them. And I will laugh in the arrogant face of anyone who tries to tell me it was "lousy."

Either kick your man's ass out of bed until he understands that servicing you is his duty, or start telling him exactly what to do.

This sentence seems to illustrate a fundamental difference about the way we think about sex. The words "servicing" and "duty" have no place in my bedroom (or living room, or backyard, or whatever). I do not want a partner who sees sex as a series of favors people do for each other, progressing toward and culminating in the 'Ultimate Favor'. This sort of goal-focused behavior is a complete turn-off for me and actually makes it more difficult for me to relax and enjoy myself; being with someone who will think of the whole experience as lousy if I don't orgasm adds an element of pressure (har har) that I just don't need. YMMV, of course... but if it does, I probably won't be sleeping with you any time soon. ;)

(Also, I'm with bingo on not understanding the "climaxed, if not outright orgasmed" thing. I thought they were synonymous...?)
posted by purplemonkie at 10:05 PM on May 2, 2004

I don't see where fff says it has to be done the same way each time, he was giving an example basically, nor do I see him saying that unless you orgasm you've wasted your time. I think some of you are mistaking his enthusiasm as something else, via your own personal problems with the subject. Yet another "some of you" seem altogether too comfortable pretending that the majority of women (when reputable studies consistently point to it being a minority) have issues achieving orgasm, or that many men can't have orgasms that are entirely different from what you have experienced. Also, calling someone naive, a liar, or selfish is a smidge too angry to be taken as anything but revealingly defensive, really. Could be your world view of the big O is somewhat faulty through your own poor track record.

most of them needing direct clitoral stimulation for an orgasm.

Let me echo fff's "well, duh!" I mean WTF? Some of you are having sex without taking the clit for a spin? For the record I have never had sex without an orgasm, and I'm pretty much the average girl. Granted I'm new out of the gate with very limited experience, but trust me when I say by the time I'm as old as Ethereal Bligh I will have done everything in my power to maintain my early track record :D

Luckily, where I live, girls are taught (in HS sex ed) that they're responsible for their own O's, and thank goodness Canadian boys are more often like fff, than not.
posted by zarah at 11:03 PM on May 2, 2004

Zarah, with all due respect, the majority of women have "difficulty" with orgasm, assuming that "difficulty" means "not every time they have sex". And while today in North America, perhaps the majority of women have orgasms during sex either occasionally or regularly; the minority who do not is still a large portion—easily a third.

I typed a longer reponse that was eliminated in a browser crash, so I'll have to summarize. Hmm.

If you're twenty or younger, the majority of women in your cohort do not regularly have orgasms via sex, or, for that matter, at all. Expectations are such that I don't doubt that a lot of young women claim to be regularly orgasmic. There's a history here that provides a context of which I think you are unaware.

Fifty years ago in NA, the overwhelming majority of women were not orgasmic. There's a whole bunch of unpleasant sociological reasons for this, I think. But there's been a real change in the numbers in the last twenty-five years—enough so that it's been a bit of a puzzle for researchers. (One big clue is that they consistently find a much larger percentage of women masturbating today than before. And for anorgasmic women, masturbation is the most effective therapy.)

When the sexual revolution came 'round, suddenly there was this expectation that only "frigid" women didn't have orgasms (and a lot of emphasis was placed on Freud's supposed more authentic "vaginal orgasms"). This put a lot of women in a bind. Coming, pun intended, into the nineties we'd gone beyond most of these stereotypes. Lots more women were having orgasms, but it wasn't necessarily something they'd experience easily through straight-vanilla intercourse. Also, it was understood finally that there's a large variation in sexual response and experience for women relative to men, and that's okay.

Yeah, it's great when a man claims to (and really does!) pay a lot of attention to a woman's needs in bed. But I and other people bristle at men who brag about always making women cum because that attitude reveals a typical male narcissism where it's all about them. And, frankly, those men are typically nowhere near as good in the sack as they think they are. If you haven't talked to any women who've suffered through a relationship where they had to indulge their lover's sense of sexual virtuosity, having to fake the expected—nay demanded—orgasm...well, you've not talked to enough women. I have.

I've known a lot of women who've never had an orgasm until they were around thirty years old. I've known a lot of women who never have orgasms except via masturbation and possibly cunninlingus. I've known surivors of rape and sexual abuse that were anorgasmic (as well as ones that were quite orgasmic). And I've known lots of women who've been orgasmic since their teens. They tend to be younger, though.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:15 AM on May 3, 2004

I guess I need to clarify that, setting aside the fact that I'm skeptical about men who say they can orgasm without ejaculating, I'm not looking for tips on how to do it myself. Nor am I worried about losing a girl to the likes of five fresh fish anytime soon. We all have our own tastes and desires, we all have are own ideas about what we want from a partner. Let this comment stand as testimony to the fact that if you are a female who finds fff's comment above manly and charming, then yes indeedy, you sure don't want to have sex with me, and don't get me wrong, I don't want to have sex with you either (nor would I be likely to have much respect for you in general). I'm fine with my own orgasms and the frequency and technique with which I give them to my partners. If you find that incompatible with the fact that I find fault with certain posts above, then I guess there's nothing I can do about it.

Ethereal Bligh's last comment is pretty reflective of my own experience, especially the last part about younger women. I encourage all women to bring themselves to orgasm as often as possible, and if they can find a way to give themselves oral sex, that's fine too.
posted by bingo at 3:53 AM on May 3, 2004

zarah: I don't see where fff says it has to be done the same way each time, he was giving an example basically, nor do I see him saying that unless you orgasm you've wasted your time.

Maybe I'm misreading, but I interpreted that post as an "OK gentlemen, stand back because The Fish is about to tell you exactly how it's done. And ladies, prepare to be dazzled!" sort of thing. You were impressed. I was not. Both responses are valid. It is not necessary to attribute difference of opinion, especially regarding a topic as subjective as sex, to "personal problems."

As far as the 'waste of time' part, does this not qualify: "I swear, any woman who isn't getting an orgasm is not getting good sex"? Further up in the thread, he also referred to nonorgasmic sex as "unfulfilling." Sorry, but no one has the right to tell me I should be unhappy with any part of my very satisfying sex life. (Well, I guess they have the right to tell me, but I sure as hell won't listen.) The morning I saw this post, I had a sexual experience in which I did not orgasm. For the rest of the day, every time I thought about the encounter I felt warm and tingly inside. That's what's important to me. And yet, according to five fresh fish, the sex was lousy. I reject this.

I mean WTF? Some of you are having sex without taking the clit for a spin?

I'm sure this is true of the world in general, which is quite unfortunate. However, no one in the thread has said it. It certainly isn't the case for me.

If it's your goal to have an orgasm every time you have sex, that's totally your prerogative and I wish you all the success in the world in meeting it. But it's not my goal, and I don't want to be told by anybody that it should be.

The fact that a woman doesn't orgasm every time she has sex does NOT always mean that her man deserves to be "kicked out of bed." My current parter (who incidentally is the one I hope to have for the rest of my life) is the most attentive, responsive, and unselfish I've ever had. We are a perfect fit for each other and I would never in a million years dream of trading him in for a man who swaggers around boasting that he makes every girl come, every time. I'm with Ethereal Bligh on this one: "[F]rankly, those men are typically nowhere near as good in the sack as they think they are. If you haven't talked to any women who've suffered through a relationship where they had to indulge their lover's sense of sexual virtuosity, having to fake the expected—nay demanded—orgasm...well, you've not talked to enough women."
posted by purplemonkie at 6:49 AM on May 3, 2004

Well, jumping back to the female multiple orgasm thing... And in the interest of providing TMI for no good reason... I was recently able to find my wife's G-spot. It really is amazing what that thing will do for a woman. Soon after we found it, we decided to see just how many orgasms she could have in a row. We stopped at 8 (in about 10 minutes) because it was actually starting to be painful for her. Needless to say, G-spot stimulation has now become a staple of our foreplay.

I am so jealous.
posted by Lafe at 7:48 AM on May 3, 2004

You should try some prostate play. There's considerable similarity in the organs—indeed, I suspect they are analogous.

It wasn't that long ago that experts would not believe in the existence of the G-spot. I actually (obviously) have a relatively high opinion of sex researchers; but the truth of the matter is that there's very little research (aside from some obvious exceptions) into human sexual physiology, function, and response. There's still lots of anatomy that is unclear or unknown, believe it or not. This is generally more true about human biology and medicine than most people suppose; but it's especially true about sexual biology. It's very annoying.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:56 AM on May 3, 2004

"The Fish" has one sexual partner and is not looking for more. I find the very idea abhorrent.

My point is only this: if you -- male or female -- are not having entirely satisfying sex, you are either (a) not communicating with your partner or (b) have a lousy partner. (Or you have a sexual dysfunction, which might be worth seeing a doctor about.)

Either way, you should solve the problem: start demanding better sex or dump the chump. There is no need to put up with bad sex.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:18 AM on May 3, 2004

I'm unsure what study you're quoting, nor am I certain about why this site believes 70% of women don't reach orgasm through intercourse alone

For some reason, mention of this (and maybe something like thirty other comments) rather irked me--as if women who don't reach orgasm vaginally can't "pop them off." This doesn't signify dysfunction on a woman's part. Vaginal orgasm is usually achieved indirectly, and I wish more women and men both were, to use zarah's words, "taking the clit for a spin."
posted by jennanemone at 10:19 AM on May 3, 2004

Jennanemone, I don't see who made that statement or implied it. I certainly said the opposite. And sequential's points seemed to be that surveys vary widely and a lot of women don't regularly have orgasms.

Hmm. I suppose what you're getting at is essentially fff's point—that if men knew what they were doing, most women would be orgasmic.

Well, no. That's not true. I have little doubt that many or most men suck in the clitoral stimulation department; but female orgasm isn't a simple matter of "taking the clit for a spin". For some, maybe. For many, no, it's not.

If that wasn't your point, then please excuse me for misunderstanding you. What I think I and others here have been trying to say is that this is not a simple matter. It's not the case that most women can't be orgasmic (they can); and neither is it the case that it's only a matter of proper technique (it's not). Both views do women a grave disservice. The former by denying them their inherent sexuality; the latter by pathologizing they and their lovers' performance and greatly increasing "performance anxiety" (which is a chief cause of anorgasmia, as it is of impotence).

I have met a number of women who believe that it was just the right, competent partner who "did things the right way" and made them cum, and that almost certainly includes clitoral stimulation. But I strongly suspect that this is a combination of two factors, each of which point in different directions. The first is that young male lovers aren't typically very good lovers (aside from eagerness and a minimal refractory period). So, eventually, a woman, as she ages, is bound to meet more and more competent lovers. This supports your (what I'm assuming is) point. But the second factor is probably just chance. Every lover I've had has been quite noticeably sensitive in different ways, where a soft touch works in one case, a vigorous touch worked in another. Men are more variable in their response than many people think; but I think there's little doubt that women are more so. If a woman isn't orgasmic because she doesn't masturbate, then she very well may not be aware of what she most strongly responds to. Even the most attentive lover may be liable only to stumble upon the right thing by chance. But when they do, well, everyone involved has learned something pretty powerful. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the partner is a fantastic lover. They could just be lucky.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:45 AM on May 3, 2004

"The Fish" has one sexual partner and is not looking for more. I find the very idea abhorrent.

It was a joke, dude -- note the cheesy and unfortunate emoticon -- and anyway, that comment was not meant to refer to you specifically; it was more of a general 'you.' Sorry for the confusion.

As for the rest of your post, I agree. I was objecting to the notion that "good sex" and "bad sex" can be distinguished by orgasm alone; of course people who aren't enjoying their sex lives should address the problem.
posted by purplemonkie at 10:45 AM on May 3, 2004

To those who complain about five fresh fish's remarks: It's fully documented that it's possible to have an ejaculatory orgasm by thinking, so why not by a backscratch? Also, it's possible to go just as intense as you normally do with orgasm, but hold the ejaculation off by contracting your PC muscles; or just to get teased into to a state even higher than you would ejaculate at, but holding off every time you're about to. It's nothing Taoist or new age wishy-washy. It's less of a big deal than it seems.
posted by abcde at 12:01 PM on May 3, 2004

Well, abcde, given the context, it sounded to me like he was saying that this orgasm via back-scratching was of the non-ejaculatory nature. So, a guy has his back scratched, and he has a really good feeling that he associates with sex, and he does not ejaculate. Did he have an orgasm? Well, if he did, then I think we might as well call an orgasm a sandwich, or a turnip.

As for holding off ejaculation, sure. It's a valid and useful technique. But as far as I'm concerned it's delaying an orgasm, not having the first of many.
posted by bingo at 12:38 PM on May 3, 2004

Bingo, I'm on medication that causes ejaculatory impairment. I can feel the muscles and glands doing their thing, but nothing comes out: they're uncoordinated.

I assure you, I have had ejaculatory orgasms by the score before I was on this medication, and the quality of orgasm I have now is exactly equivalent in all aspects to those, sans the ejaculation.

To be perfectly frank, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Just like birthing, you can't know it unless you've done it.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:44 PM on May 4, 2004

My god. I've shared way more about my sex life with you people than anyone else on earth, save my wife.

I feel dirty.

Also, I apologize to all of you who didn't want to know such details. I don't know what possessed me. I must be feeling much too much intimate with y'all.

Shudder.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:18 PM on May 4, 2004

Yay for FFF! Believe it or not, that piece of information is usefull, and appreciated.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 7:30 PM on May 4, 2004

Yeah, it's very useful. You can indeed have an orgasm without an ejaculation. Just make sure you're on medication that renders ejaculation impossible. Oh, I didn't mention that part? Whoopsie, daisy! It's like birthing, you don't know unless you do it. Uh...it's like a lady getting out of a car, sometimes you see it, sometimes you don't. You ate the sandbox, Bert! Yuk yuk yuk!
posted by bingo at 7:53 PM on May 4, 2004

Hey, no need to get rude to each other, now. Don't be embarrassed, fff.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:31 PM on May 4, 2004

Why is it so important for you to deny that males can have multiple orgasms, bingo?

If it's a jealousy thing, the good news is that you, too, can achieve m.o., and without the nasty drugs. Go hit the net and learn how to override your ejaculatory system.

FWIW, before I was on meds, I tried some of the m.o. techniques. I succeeded once, and had fun anyway the other times. The meds initially made it easier to do willfully; now they're making it difficult to not do willfully.

I must admit that I'm now a little curious as to whyinpHilltr8r is finding this interesting and useful...
posted by five fresh fish at 9:37 PM on May 4, 2004

Go hit the net and learn how to override your ejaculatory system.

Um...no thanks. Mine is doing just fine. Sorry to hear about yours, though. It must be hard for you to restrain yourself from getting into arguments about your sexual prowess in order to compensate.
posted by bingo at 5:06 AM on May 5, 2004

fff, even though I took issue with some of the things you said in this thread re: female orgasm, I appreciated hearing about other aspects of your experience and I wish you wouldn't feel embarassed. I actually didn't know that men could have orgasms without ejaculation, and I like learning new stuff. So, thanks.
posted by purplemonkie at 6:09 AM on May 5, 2004

bingo, you're a weird fucker. You're the one who said "If you know of a way for a guy to have an orgasm before, and independent of, his first ejaculation of a 'session,' then by all means tell me and I'll try it out."

Several people have given you advice, and I've shared my experience, yet you've rejected it all.

What the hell do you want to hear, then?
posted by five fresh fish at 10:53 AM on May 5, 2004

Did you miss the part where I said I guess I need to clarify that, setting aside the fact that I'm skeptical about men who say they can orgasm without ejaculating, I'm not looking for tips on how to do it myself....?

I meant: I'll try it to see whether or not it's malarkey. Hey, I've tried all sorts of things, just to broaden my experience. But let my lack of interest in going out of my way to prove myself wrong stand testament to the fact that I don't stay up at night fretting about how I might acheive the non-ejaculatory orgasm. I'm fine with my orgasms. They're natural. I'm fine with a "refractory period." That's part of being a man. I like being a man. I like being the kind of man that I am.

I stand by my third comment above: I've never heard anyone male claim that it is possible, unless they were doing so in front of a girl they wanted to impress, and then later admitted that they were hedging their definition of "orgasm."

And by "claiming it's possible," I don't mean providing a link to a book about it so that I can study it myself. And your situation, fff, is really just a version on the latter type of claimant. If we were in a thread about people who claim to stay up for three straight nights without fatigue, and you said it was nonsense, and I argued with you and eventually admitted that I'm able to do it because I take copious amounts of speed, then I would not have proved anything either.
posted by bingo at 7:26 PM on May 5, 2004

Okey-dokey. Seems awful important for you to be right on this one, so I'll agree: you're right.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:30 AM on May 6, 2004

Instead of agreeing because you think it's important to me that you do so, why don't you agree out of an admission that your own arguments have been dishonest, childish, and not based in reality?
posted by bingo at 11:21 AM on May 6, 2004

Guys, let it go.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:14 PM on May 6, 2004