Female Orgasm

Demiurge

This user has no title
Aug 12, 2003
1,520
9
38
lunar stonehenge
Visit site
Why does female orgasm occur at all? The best explanation so far is that of the Californian anthropologist Donald Symons who suggests that the capacity for orgasm in females stems for the fact that they share with males the basic neurological mechanisms that underlie a capacity which is biologically important only in males. For the sake of simplicity the genetic blueprints for males and females remain as similar as possible without incurring reproductive disadvantage. Thus a female canary has all the mechanisms for singing but does not demonstrate this ability unless injected with male hormone. The human male has vestigial nipples which are quite useless to him and are not erotically sensitive unless he is given oestrogen. A woman's clitoris is likewise a vestigial penis and, as such, is rather small and not located in such a place that heterosexual intercourse is the optimal method of stimulation. If sufficient clitoral stimulation is given, orgasm will occur, but a great deal of manual or oral attention may be necessary in addition to, or instead of, intercourse if the average woman is to be guaranteed the experience (see Figure, Normal distribution of orgasmic ability in women, from Wilson, 1988).

wilson24kw.png


Impressive confirmation of Symon's 'artefact' theory of female orgasm comes from the discovery that male hormones increase a woman's sexual responsiveness -- although with the risk of masculinizing side-effects like hair on the chin (Kane, Lipton and Ewing, 1969). By contrast, attempts to treat female orgasm difficulty by using anti-anxiety ***** to counter the supposed inhibitions deriving from upbringing and religion have repeatedly failed (Wilson, 1988).

This does not devalue the female orgasm in any way or the efforts made by sex therapists and women's consciousness groups to help women achieve it. Fingers have not evolved for playing the piano, but many of us can learn to do so and give ourselves and other people a great deal of pleasure in the process. Likewise, many women who have not experienced orgasm can learn the skill and their male partners can be taught to assist. However, it would help enormously if we abandoned the myth that men and women are 'made for each other' -- that is, constructed in such a way that in the absence of any pathology they will naturally experience simultaneous orgasm during intercourse. Orgasm is natural for men, but for women it is better understood as a skill which can provide a great deal of pleasure to both partners. A full understanding of the differing sexual response cycles of men and women, and the biological basis of this difference, is fundamental to the success of sex therapy.

The resistance of sex problems to social change was seen in the Sun survey described in Chapter 4. In view of the increased frankness of modern society and all the books and articles that have been written about how to improve our sex lives, we might have hoped that the younger generation (people under thirty) would have fewer sexual problems such as guilt and lack of orgasm than their parents' generation. However, comparisons based on a sample of over four thousand women (Table, from Wilson, 1988) show that these problems persist in almost exactly the same proportions and with just the same difference between men and women.

wilson11ku.png


More than 40 per cent of women, both young and middle-aged, report difficulty in achieving orgasm, and more than half the men in both age-groups complain that their orgasm is often too quick (the reverse of retarded female orgasm). Guilt and anxiety remain as minority problems with both sexes (about 14 per cent of men and 18 per cent of women), but perhaps most striking are the numbers of women who suffer painful intercourse (around 40 per cent) or are simply bored and uninterested in sex (around 35 per cent).


Glenn Wilson, The Great Sex Divide, pp. 90-92. Peter Owen (London) 1989; Scott-Townsend (Washington D.C.) 1992.

Although this does not offer an analysis of the physiological effects that "orgasm" has on the female body, it does resonate with Justin S.' point that modern society exalts female sexuality as if females were as lascivious as males, despite the fact that alarming numbers of them are uninterested or unable to orgasm or find sexual intercourse painful.
 
Im a little bewildered by this thread. Isnt it common knowledge that female orgasm is much different than the male? And isnt it common knowledge that women on average, have a much more difficult time acheiving orgasm?

On to the findings. It states clittoral stimulation along with oral and manual stimulation is needed, as actual copulation does not produce enough stimulation to reach female orgasm. Again, I thought this was common knowledge. Also, there is the psychological factor involved. Some women, only need the slightest bit of stimulation, while others, need alot. Ive never had the bad fortune to copulate with one of these 40%er's, but I would imagine the problem is not only psychological, but due to their male partner's failure to properly understand what pleasures a women.

Thus, we come to the last point, that of modern society portrait of the liberated and sexual women. First, I'd like to add that since the dawn of homoerotic Christiandom, women have been viewed as sexual creatures, who cannot get enough. Even in the repressed Victorian age, women were considered sexual creatures, just waiting to be tapped. Thus, I dont know if feminism has really changed this perception, other than women are perceived to be now more or less empowered with their sexuality, supposed to enjoy it more with this power, consider and have sex with men they want and desire, etc.

Finally the question this article raises is why women would wish to have standard intercourse at all?--especially as it brings with it the risk of pregancy, disease, etc, and leaves the woman with little pleasure.
 
speed said:
Finally the question becomes why women would wish to have standard intercourse at all?--especially as it brings with it the risk of pregancy, disease, etc, and leaves the woman with little pleasure.

I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but in my experience, the kind of pleasure a woman derives from manual stimulation of the clitoris and standard intercourse is ... well, simply put, different. So if you'll allow me to offer an analogy: Ice cream and chocolate sauce. Both good on their own, but best together.


Ehhr... yeah...
 
Crimson Velvet said:
I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but in my experience, the kind of pleasure a woman derives from manual stimulation of the clitoris and standard intercourse is ... well, simply put, different. So if you'll allow me to offer an analogy: Ice cream and chocolate sauce. Both good on their own, but best together.


Ehhr... yeah...

Indeed, but this appears to be the thesis of said article Demiurge presented.
 
It's a mental thing more than anything else. A woman will acheive orgasm faster with someone she cares about because it's a fantasy come true. It's more than hitting certain areas of the clitoris. One makes themselves become aroused and excited, and as a result, orgasm. Men may not be exactly the same here, but I think it also applies to Men to a certain extent.
 
speed said:
Im a little bewildered by this thread.

Justin S. made a fairly lengthy post in another thread about this subject and expressed a desire for there to be a thread on it, although, he was reluctant because of the strong preconceptions people have about it. I started such a topic.

On to the findings. It states clittoral stimulation along with oral and manual stimulation is needed, as actual copulation does not produce enough stimulation to reach female orgasm. Again, I thought this was common knowledge. Also, there is the psychological factor involved. Some women, only need the slightest bit of stimulation, while others, need alot. Ive never had the bad fortune to copulate with one of these 40%er's, but I would imagine the problem is not only psychological, but due to their male partner's failure to properly understand what pleasures a women.

Thus, we come to the last point, that of modern society portrait of the liberated and sexual women. First, I'd like to add that since the dawn of homoerotic Christiandom, women have been viewed as sexual creatures, who cannot get enough. Even in the repressed Victorian age, women were considered sexual creatures, just waiting to be tapped. Thus, I dont know if feminism has really changed this perception, other than women are perceived to be now more or less empowered with their sexuality, supposed to enjoy it more with this power, consider and have sex with men they want and desire, etc.

I think you're missing something here. Our contemporaries believe that orgasm is normal for women, that if they're not having it, then something is amiss. However, we have little reason to believe this is so, judging from the high incidence of sexual uninterest, pain, and unreceptiveness reported by women. Furthermore, the problem is unlikely to be repression because most would agree that society has become far more lenient towards female sexuality and, in fact, is encouraging it, yet the incidence of "dysfunction" has scarcely changed at all. Why do we continue to adhere to the belief that the sexes are equal in their sexual behavior or even close? Female unreceptiveness is not a problem to be treated by psychotherapy anymore than male lasciviousness requires a cure, both are normal and not symptomatic of pathology.

Finally the question this article raises is why women would wish to have standard intercourse at all?--especially as it brings with it the risk of pregancy, disease, etc, and leaves the woman with little pleasure.

Probably because it is traditional and the male requires it.

Patrick R. said:
Those are some old sources.

Not really. Plenty of research was conducted during the 1980s, which is still highly relevant to contemporary persons. If you mean to say it's too old, I could not disagree more strongly.
 
Patrick R. said:
Those are some old sources.
Even if the resources are old, how much has the vag changed since this publication?
Also, why hasn't the vagina "evolved" into a more user-friendly piece of equipment?
 
Demiurge said:
Justin S. made a fairly lengthy post in another thread about this subject and expressed a desire for there to be a thread on it, although, he was reluctant because of the strong preconceptions people have about it. I started such a topic.

I think you're missing something here. Our contemporaries believe that orgasm is normal for women, that if they're not having it, then something is amiss. However, we have little reason to believe this is so, judging from the high incidence of sexual uninterest, pain, and unreceptiveness reported by women. Furthermore, the problem is unlikely to be repression because most would agree that society has become far more lenient towards female sexuality and, in fact, is encouraging it, yet the incidence of "dysfunction" has scarcely changed at all. Why do we continue to adhere to the belief that the sexes are equal in their sexual behavior or even close? Female unreceptiveness is not a problem to be treated by psychotherapy anymore than male lasciviousness requires a cure, both are normal and not symptomatic of pathology.

Interesting, so your purpose is merely to point out the drastic differences between males and females, and to deride any attempts at findings that point to any cultural or psychological reasons for this difference in women?
 
fah-q said:
Even if the resources are old, how much has the vag changed since this publication?
Also, why hasn't the vagina "evolved" into a more user-friendly piece of equipment?


Fah-q, there has been lots of research into the vagina and female anatomy over the years, particularly with the ‘Gräfenberg spot’ (g spot) and essentially ‘bigger is better’ when it comes to the g spot (bad news for you). I'm kidding, read this article and you will see what I mean.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2495
 
Demiurge said:
Not really. Plenty of research was conducted during the 1980s, which is still highly relevant to contemporary persons. If you mean to say it's too old, I could not disagree more strongly.

True, but there has been plenty of new research over the last decade which is very interesting, if you are a man and love women that is.
 
That was an interesting link Patrick R.
I am not sure that there really is a widespread assumption that women are as sexually responsive as men. I thought everyone knows that there are a lot of women with no interest in sex. It is often cited as the reason that their husbands go to prositutes. Whereas a situation where the woman wants sex and the man doesn't seems more unusual. If anything men are put under more pressure to have orgasms because if a couple are having intercourse, the woman can just enjoy the physical closeness and the loving bond. But if the man doesn't orgasm - she may feel that he is losing interest in her, and he may feel deeply worried about becoming impotent.
 
Patrick R. said:
Fah-q, there has been lots of research into the vagina and female anatomy over the years, particularly with the ‘Gräfenberg spot’ (g spot) and essentially ‘bigger is better’ when it comes to the g spot (bad news for you). I'm kidding, read this article and you will see what I mean.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2495
Good stuff, Patrick. For now, I will just continue my independent research.
 
10293847 said:
It's a mental thing more than anything else. A woman will acheive orgasm faster with someone she cares about because it's a fantasy come true. It's more than hitting certain areas of the clitoris. One makes themselves become aroused and excited, and as a result, orgasm. Men may not be exactly the same here, but I think it also applies to Men to a certain extent.

I agree. I also would like to add that if a woman goes into a sexual situation doubting themselves, or the ability of their partner, rather than just enjoying the sexual experience, it will be much more difficult for her to attain an orgasm. "Put a smile on!", as Ronald McDonald says:Spin:
 
Norsemaiden said:
That was an interesting link Patrick R.
I am not sure that there really is a widespread assumption that women are as sexually responsive as men. I thought everyone knows that there are a lot of women with no interest in sex. It is often cited as the reason that their husbands go to prositutes. Whereas a situation where the woman wants sex and the man doesn't seems more unusual. If anything men are put under more pressure to have orgasms because if a couple are having intercourse, the woman can just enjoy the physical closeness and the loving bond. But if the man doesn't orgasm - she may feel that he is losing interest in her, and he may feel deeply worried about becoming impotent.

Yes but you must remember there is a lot more to a relationship then just sex, that is a good part, but whenever you can’t get it from your partner the worst thing you can do is cheat, not only do you have to watch out STD’s but you will also get a very mad spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend on your hands.
 
Patrick R. said:
Yes but you must remember there is a lot more to a relationship then just sex, that is a good part, but whenever you can’t get it from your partner the worst thing you can do is cheat, not only do you have to watch out STD’s but you will also get a very mad spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend on your hands.

I couldn't agree more. I abhor prostitution and the kind of men that would go to them. But the situation exists, and could only be rectified by eugenics. Cheating is by definition extremely dishonest and would understandably wreck a relationship as trust would disappear. However, sometimes couples talk things over frankly and reach compromises that do not involve cheating. Although such arrangements must be fraught with difficulty. It seems that the Celts and the Spartans had an approach wherin such compromises were commonplace.
Generally old couples can't even be bothered with sex, but they continue to love eachother very deeply.
 
Norsemaiden said:
I couldn't agree more. I abhor prostitution and the kind of men that would go to them. But the situation exists, and could only be rectified by eugenics. Cheating is by definition extremely dishonest and would understandably wreck a relationship as trust would disappear. However, sometimes couples talk things over frankly and reach compromises that do not involve cheating. Although such arrangements must be fraught with difficulty. It seems that the Celts and the Spartans had an approach wherin such compromises were commonplace.
Generally old couples can't even be bothered with sex, but they continue to love eachother very deeply.
Sex does not have to be connected with love as strongly as it is in the modern world. Sex is, the utmost height one can climb while going up on a ladder of love, but its a matter of mere choice at one point of time to how high you want to stay because as time passes by, you tend to get more and more scared of heights. You have to step down a few steps to keep the stability factor at a neutral level.

The society I live in is more anti-sex than any other in the world (well pre-marital atleast), but this does not only bring the blacker side of those initial choices (of the "rule-setters") into prospective.. it also results in the fulfilment of the desires these boundaries were created for.. to keep certain socially-corrupting elements at bay from the vacinity.
 
If sex is the highest point on the ladder of love for two people to climb, then why do so many people seem to defend to the death the idea of moving from one person to the next, constantly having sex with people that you barely know? If people all truely valued sex as truly the highest point of affection for another person, then premarital sex wouldn't be nearly as big as it is around the world.
 
Norsemaiden said:
However, sometimes couples talk things over frankly and reach compromises that do not involve cheating. Although such arrangements must be fraught with difficulty. It seems that the Celts and the Spartans had an approach wherin such compromises were commonplace.
Generally old couples can't even be bothered with sex, but they continue to love eachother very deeply.

This is a point that I was planning to make in this thread myself. I believe it to be a very understandable solution to disinterest in sex from one partner in a relationship. It all hinges, to me, on whether sex can reasonably be understood as a "need." If it is needed, then if my partner doesn't want it, I feel justified in finding an alternate route to pleasure. If it is superfluous and simply a rung on the ladder of love, I should be alright without.

Now, I'm not even sure how I'd approach this problem in my own relationship were the need to arise.
 
I really respect all on this forum. But, can analyzing something to death just at some point get ridiculous? We are discussing something that is an integral part of Human nature. The very first line in the thread starts out "why does female orgasm occur at all." I say thank God it does happen!! If I am involved in a sexual relationship, it is of the utmost importance that my partner achieve orgasm. Or I feel that "we" have not done our best. I'm grateful that over the years, I have learned patience, to be open and attentive to my partner. Especially, if I love her and want the best for her. I really don't care what some Doctor or Philospher thinks about sex. Is their nothing sacred anymore?