Vaginal Orgasm MYTH

[Incocknito]

Apparently vaginal orgasms are not a thing.

What do you think? I thought they were a thing but science says no:

The female orgasm as you know it does not exist

 

[Serial Kisser]

A reference to this article was already posted in another subforum here.

It's a bunch of bullshit.

 

[TexanStar]

"This is the last, anticlimactical, word on the female orgasm debate, according to a paper published in the latest issue of the journal Clinical Anatomy.

The researchers, from the Italian Centre for Sexology, argue..."

Oh, well if it came from the Italian Centre for Sexology, I can see why it should be taken as gospel.

 

[TheRob]

Hey. I'm Italian

 

[Penis Aficionado]

Since some women can have orgasms literally through an act of will, without being touched at all, it seems reasonable to think that women could also have orgasms becasue something pleasurable is in their vagina.

 

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

Check the magazine she wrote this for; LIFE & STYLE MAGAZINE- a gossip rag. Yeah, real Pulitzer material.

 

[deleted848353]

Is the OP related to AYC10

 

[7x6]

Isn't this more to do with the definition of what a clitoris is? I think the new definition includes rather more of the pussy is clitoris than what most people think. I've that this isn't 'science' at all, just presented as such in the hope it'll get people talking and maybe interested in female anatomy.

 

[Tactfulgal]

Feel free to ignore that. People telling other people what they do and don't feel is obnoxious whether it's being done by a man or a woman.

 

[mikeyinbrooklyn]

are not a thing

This expression has jumped the shark, and quickly. I am including different permutations, including "Is (such and such) a thing?".

 

[mikeyinbrooklyn]

Feel free to ignore that. People telling other people what they do and don't feel is obnoxious whether it's being done by a man or a woman.

So true.

 

[INS]

LOL I love how everyone just butchered and misinterpreted the original paper.

They said orgasms can come from penetration but involve the stimulation of the surrounding erectile tissue (clitoris, labia, vestibular bulbs etc) rather than from the vaginal tissue. They dubbed these erectile structures 'the female penis'.

Second, I found an issue with the fact that they dismissed the cervical and fornices as being erogenous zones innervated by the vagus nerve as a hypothesis. Now that, is an issue. Their main focus was on the G-spot, which they didn't really find an anatomical structure for, and the previous reportings of said g-spot were considered erroneous reporting (they made valid points in the paper)

And finally, I feel it would've been really insightful if the guys would've also had some research on different sensory feedback the brain/ spinal cord received on stimulating different areas of the vagina when the woman was aroused, rather than more gross anatomical studies.

 

[Tactfulgal]

LOL I love how everyone just butchered and misinterpreted the original paper.

I don't think anyone butchered the paper. I read it. The authors come right out and say some things don't occur that I have personally experienced. They also tell women that certain things are the same as other things, when my experience says they're not. The authors are wrong, and they didn't achieve anything useful beyond getting an article published.

 

[ericbear]

There are two sentences in the the on-line version of the research paper worthy of note:

"The majority of women worldwide do not have orgasms during intercourse..."

and

"Female orgasm is possible in all women...during vaginal/anal intercourse simply by stimulating the clitoris with a finger."

I point out that this is a retrospective paper. That is, no original research was performed; rather conclusions were drawn based on information found in prior publications. In such a paper, one can support pretty much whatever conclusion one wishes, simply by deciding which prior publications to cite, and which to completely ignore.

In this case, I suspect two sexually inadequate people found "scientific" support for a conclusion to explain why they couldn't achieve climax. (If I understand the Italian names correctly, one author is male and the other female.)

I may be a 100% gay man, but in my very limited experiences with vaginal sex, I can assure you that there is at least one female creature on this earth that can experience multiple repetitive orgasms from the end of my cock being gently worked against her cervix, notwithstanding the claims of the authors.

 

[Tactfulgal]

I point out that this is a retrospective paper. That is, no original research was performed; rather conclusions were drawn based on information found in prior publications.

This is key. This wasn't science, it was just an article written because the authors thought they could get it published.
I don't know if your theory of why they did it is right, they also might have just done it for the money of getting an article syndicated. But there are so many articles like this that are all pointless. The only way they hold any value is if a lot of women are hallucinating and haven't experienced things they think they have.

 

[7x6]

Feel free to ignore that. People telling other people what they do and don't feel is obnoxious whether it's being done by a man or a woman.

My post was only theorising about researchers motives and not suggesting anyone feels or should feel anything but you're just so offended that a man had the nerve to post at all that you ha to write that. Why is the internet so full of people looking to take offence?

 

[Tactfulgal]

My post was only theorising about researchers motives and not suggesting anyone feels or should feel anything but you're just so offended that a man had the nerve to post at all that you ha to write that. Why is the internet so full of people looking to take offence?

I hadn't read your post, so nothing I said was responding to you. As for the gender issue, that may be your hangup but I said that telling people what they do and don't feel is silly regardless of whether a man or woman is doing it. Finally, pointing out an article is wrong is not the same as being offended by it. I will say that the article is written to get attention and little else. It wasn't meant to be science and shouldn't be viewed as if it were. And, yes, the internet is full of that.

 

[TexanStar]

Why is the internet so full of people looking to take offence?

Indeed.

*snicker*.

 

[Enid]

I strongly believe in the fornices. This paper is a bit crap, if you ask me.

 

[EllieP]

My only take away here is that the article is aimed solely at men. Using a term like "female penis" is completely alien to me because I don't have a penis. I'm looking for the article where it refers to a penis as a male clitoris.