(058) HYPNOTIC INDUCTION OF ORGASM INCREASES PLASMA PROLACTIN IN WOMEN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Although sexual orgasm is typically a product of “bottom-up” genitosensory stimulation, it is also controlled by “top-down” processing of excitation and inhibition that controls both the timing of parasympathetic and sympathetic blood flow, and the subjective ability to “let go” into the orgasm when it is imminent. Consistent with this, orgasms activate cortical, limbic, hypothalamic, and brainstem structures, have characteristic pelvic floor muscle signatures and spinal cord activation that characterizes sexual “climax”, and can be rated subjectively in terms of the quality and type of sensory stimulation, affective experience, and the evaluation of pleasure. Orgasms are also accompanied by neurochemical and endocrine changes that characterize ecstatic pleasure, satiety, and refractoriness. Among these correlates is a consistent, orgasm-induced surge of prolactin released from the anterior pituitary into the peripheral bloodstream due to an immediate inhibition of dopamine. Orgasms can also be induced without genital stimulation. People experience orgasms during sleep, with exercise, with particular pelvic floor movements, and during hypnotic suggestion. Some women can have orgasms simply by engaging in imagery and fantasy. Paraplegic men and women also report “phantom” orgasms. This suggests that top-down control of orgasm can be activated on its own, suggesting a kind of “orgasm motor memory”. Objective To examine whether orgasms induced by hypnotic suggestion are “real,” in that they are accompanied by a prolactin surge, and how they are rated afterwards on Subjective, Affective, and Evaluative domains of the Orgasm Rating Scale (ORS; Mah and Binik, 2002). Hypnotic induction of laughter was used as a control condition. Methods Blood was taken before and immediately after each condition in 5 healthy premenopausal women who were susceptible to hypnotic induction and were fully clothed during the inductions. In addition to prolactin, blood plasma was assayed for LH, FSH, and total testosterone. Subjective ratings of the orgasms were made using the ORS, and compared to a separate group of age-matched women who used the ORS to rate orgasms induced by solo masturbation and partnered sex. Results Plasma prolactin increased to an average of 147% of baseline after hypnotic orgasm induction, but decreased to an average of 89% of baseline after hypnotic laughter induction. Changes in LH, FSH, and total T were not significant. Characteristic pelvic floor and abdominal contractions of orgasm were observed. Abdominal contractions were also observed with laughter. Relative to orgasms induced by solo masturbation and partnered sex, hypnotic orgasm induction showed the highest scores on the Subjective and Affective domains of the ORS, but did not differ in the Evaluative domain. Conclusions Hypnotic orgasm induction appears to be real, despite no direct genital stimulation. It is likely induced by top-down motor memory and pelvic floor stimulation of pudendal, hypogastric, and/or pelvic nerves. Hypnotic orgasm induction offers therapeutic intervention for women with orgasm difficulties. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: FirmTech Inc. (USA); Kadence Bio (UK); Ovoca Bio/IVIX Corp. (Ireland); Reunion Neuroscience (Canada); SmartBod/Lioness, Inc. (USA); Vella Bioscience (USA).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".