Anti-climactic: Investigating how late adolescents perceive and deal with orgasm difficulty in the context of their intimate relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a long history of survey research indicating high rates of orgasm difficulties among adults. We sought to investigate how male and female heterosexual late adolescents perceive difficulties with orgasm, whether gender differences were apparent, and how they tried to resolve these difficulties (if at all). We conducted semi-structured interviews with 53 heterosexual male and female adolescents, aged 18–21 years. Interviews were guided around the question of when sex was not as good as they thought it should be, with subsequent open-ended probes questioning them about specific difficulties around sex, including difficulty having, reaching, or timing orgasm, their feelings about these difficulties, and any efforts they took to resolve these difficulties. The majority (71%) of young women and a third (33%) of young men reported having difficulty reaching orgasm in partnered sex, whereas 38% of men also reported ejaculating too quickly. Themes that emerged included reports of not being taught about pleasure in school or at home, that sex was completed after the male partners' orgasm, and some participants resorting to faking orgasm when feeling that they were taking too long. Resolution of orgasm difficulty tended to occur in the context of communicative relationships for both the young men and women in the sample. The results of the study provide insight into issues with orgasm for young people specifically, and the role of communication in sexual problem-solving, which may be applied in sexual health education contexts, including online forums.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".