Vaginal orgasm is associated with indices of women's better psychological, intimate relationship, and psychophysiological function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent study by Therrien and Brotto (2016) examined the associations of orgasm during intercourse, concordance of laboratory genital and subjective arousal, and demographic variables in a group of sexually dysfunctional women. The authors claimed that their results cast doubt on the large body of multi-method multi-national research demonstrating that women's orgasm from penile-vaginal intercourse, and specifically vaginal orgasm are associated with a broad range of indices of women's better psychological, intimate relationship, and psychophysiological health. The problems with Therrien and Brotto's (2016) conclusions are discussed, and include that they did not even measure vaginal orgasm (they measured orgasm during intercourse, which can in some cases consist of orgasm elicited by clitoral masturbation during intercourse), and the non-generalisability of their findings from a sexually dysfunctional sample to the general population of women. Evidence is also presented against their claims that findings regarding orgasm during intercourse have not been investigated by other researchers, and their denial of differences between vaginal orgasm and clitoral orgasm. Denial of the myriad benefits of vaginal orgasm undermines women's sexual and general health potential, and serves only the demands of political correctness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".