Talk:Orgasm

Painting

I fail to see the oil painting's relation with the rest of the article. M@R10FYREFLOWER — Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Your failure is noted. 147.148.211.100 (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I also fail to see the relation of the painting, particularly when the source article for the painting mentions nothing sexual in nature. 95.141.24.25 (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

yes nothing sexual in nature 41.121.25.73 (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest something better to replace it with. Or perhaps no image at all is needed. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Anal and prostate stimulation

Who can explain me more this term: The aforementioned orgasms are sometimes referred to as anal orgasms, but sexologists and sex educators generally believe that orgasms derived from anal penetration are the result of the relationship between the nerves of the anus, rectum, clitoris or G-spot area in women, and the anus's proximity to the prostate and relationship between the anal and rectal nerves in men, rather than orgasms originating from the anus itself Jamesbond12323 (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Primary image

Why is a film poster the primary image for an article about sexual climax?! --24.80.199.58 (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It is probably better than the euphemistic image that it replaced. Do you have a better suggestion yet? Peaceray (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

In retrospect, maybe both are pointless. But the film poster is just bizarre in my opinion. At least the painting was identifiably "artistic" and perhaps euphemistic. However, no, I do not have a better alternative than just not trying to illustrate a physical feeling. That just seems pointless and over-the-top. --24.80.199.58 (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Addition of gifs

Recent addition of gifs which show contractions that accompany orgasms in males and females was unfortunately reverted. These gifs are in complete accord with the overall subject of this article, which mentions the word 'contractions' nineteen times to explain orgasm. As Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, there is no need to remove these gifs as they are appropriate for this particular article and help in illustrating and understand the stated 'contractions'. The gifs complement the article's text and they may need to be treated in a more encyclopedic manner instead of outright removal per WP:GRATUITOUS. Hope to resolve this issue soon. Rim sim (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Two editors have already explained to you what WP policies they violate. Stating they are "in complete accord" with WP policy is thus not an objective statement, and is what is in contention here. I may be convinced that drastically shortened versions of the GIFs, with sufficient explanation as to the reason for their presence in the article, may be appropriate. But that is unlikely. Meanwhile, the current versions clearly are not. There is no reason why an article on orgasms needs to show a woman masturbating, or needs to show the same ejaculation three times in increasingly close-up, slow-motion views. The second GIF is not even of good quality, showing an awkward angle far different from the first one. (See, by comparison, the article on ejaculation, which uses a much more encyclopedic and appropriate GIF.) Please familiarize yourself with WP:GRATUITOUS, particularly whether the GIFs actually "increase the reader's understanding of the article's subject matter", and whether they give a "distorted idea of the subject". In addition to the above issues, I believe they fail both requirements: these images do not illustrate an orgasm, but rather the typical physiological responses that accompany one, conflating a reader's understanding of what one actually is. It is not possible to directly illustrate an orgasm, and trying to do so detracts from the subject matter. Please also review the last paragraph of WP:GRATUITOUS which specifically addresses topics similar to this one. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

A few paragraphs from the article which talk about the 'contractions' that accompany orgasms:

In women:

Women's orgasms have been estimated to last, on average, approximately 20 seconds, and to consist of a series of muscular contractions in the pelvic area that includes the vagina, the uterus, and the anus.

Researchers from the University Medical Center of Groningen in the Netherlands correlated the sensation of orgasm with muscular contractions occurring at a frequency of 8–13 Hz centered in the pelvis and measured in the anus. ... They assert that they have identified "[t]he first objective and quantitative measure that has a strong correspondence with the subjective experience that orgasm ultimately is" and state that the measure of contractions that occur at a frequency of 8–13 Hz is specific to orgasm.

In men:

As a man nears orgasm during stimulation of the penis, he feels an intense and highly pleasurable pulsating sensation of neuromuscular euphoria. These pulsating sensations originate from the contractions of pelvic floor muscles that begin in the anal sphincter and travel to the tip of the penis.

During orgasm, a human male experiences rapid, rhythmic contractions of the anal sphincter, the prostate, and the bulbospongiosus muscles of the penis. ... Except for in cases of a dry orgasm, contraction of the sphincter and prostate force stored semen to be expelled through the penis's urethral opening. The process takes from three to ten seconds and produces a pleasurable feeling. Ejaculation may continue for a few seconds after the euphoric sensation gradually tapers off.

The two GIFs[1] that were added clearly illustrate the above mentioned 'contractions' — one in a female and another in a male; and they are placed appropriately in the articles body under text which describes them, thus enabling the reader understand what these 'contractions' actually look like. Denying people to see them in an article which specifically addresses them ('contractions' is mentioned 19 times in the article) reeks of prudishness. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, if the media is appropriate with the content of an article, then it need not be removed even if some people find it objectionable. If allowed, they could well go onto get everything related to sexuality removed on WP using semantics. Rim sim (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)