Talk:Coregasm

Floated

Probably not a stub.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Issues

Tomwsulcer, I came to this article via this edit you made to the Orgasm article. I'm going to go ahead and ask WP:Med to weigh in on the existence of this article. My concern is the following: There is already so much misinformation out there about the topic of female orgasm, with many scientists being clear that all these different pseudo-scientific categories for female orgasm are problematic. This 2009 "Sex and Society", source, from Marshall Cavendish Corporation, page 59, for example, states, "Research has shown that vaginal and clitoral tissues are interconnected, and most scientists contend that no distinction should be made between 'types' of female orgasm." And yet, to me, this article, which is based mostly on media sources, somewhat treats the topic of coregasm as though it is scientifically validated. We don't even treat the G-spot as though it is scientifically validated. How is a coregasm different from a vaginal or clitoral orgasm? And keep in mind that most scientists today believe that a vaginal orgasm is a different type of clitoral orgasm. That's the main reason that we don't have a Vaginal orgasm article and a Clitoral orgasm article; the articles would be highly redundant (a WP:Content fork matter) because vaginal and clitoral orgasms are so often discussed side by side in the literature, and there is no solid research distinguishing the two. Furthermore, that topic only needs a section or two in the Orgasm article. So why does this one need its own article? In women, where is the coregasm felt? If it's felt in the vagina or clitoris, then how is it not a type of vaginal or clitoral orgasm?

One can argue that Coregasm is a WP:Notable topic, but, per WP:No page, I'm not convinced that it needs its own Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I contacted WP:Med for their opinions. The lead does currently note that there is little evidence for this type of orgasm. So I do appreciate that the article is not presenting this type of orgasm an as outright scientific fact. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer for your views. Yes let's bring in more medical-type contributors. Let me try to address some of your concerns. First, what's the difference between a coregasm and a vaginal/clitoral orgasm? Answer: coregasms happen alone, without having 'sex', without even thinking sexually, generally without the intention of having an orgasm -- an accidental orgasm of sorts; vaginal/clitoral orgasms happen probably with a partner, or if solo, with hand stimulation or a vibrator, and is usually purposeful; a further distinction: coregasms happen mostly to women while orgasms happen to both sexes. Second, does 'coregasm' deserve its own page? While arguments could go either way, I think it does deserve its own page since it is so different from what normally is thought of as orgasm, that is, it is a subject in its own right. Further, the Orgasm wikipage is getting pretty full (122,000 bytes). Third, is the topic of coregasm pseudoscience? Clearly Debby Herbenick is a respected sex researcher at a major US university who published her study of coregasms in a peer-reviewed journal; in addition, Alfred Kinsey as well mentioned it in a previous book; but, that said, that's the only solid medical research out there, and it is a bit thin, but the article says that. Let me add one weird thing to the ointment: I studied anthropology in college, and much psychology too, and in a real sense, there have been all kinds of taboos and cultural biases against women talking about sex and orgasms publicly since time immemorial -- this could be a huge distorting factor, even in medical research as well as popular culture, although my sense is that with greater openness and more information, the topic will get greater attention.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Tomwsulcer, here's my issue with how you are distinguishing coregasm: Orgasms do not solely happen alone. In fact, women usually have an orgasm by themselves via masturbation because 70-80% of women cannot have an orgasm from vaginal intercourse since the vagina has relatively few nerve endings and the clitoris, which is the primary sexual organ for women and is an organ men typically do not focus on during sex, is not getting direct stimulation during sex. Furthermore, if the coregasm originates from the vaginal/clitoral area, it is simply a different type of vaginal/clitoral orgasm. Orgasms are defined by what happens to the sexual organs (usually anyway). If a woman has a vaginal/clitoral orgasm from exercising, it is simply a different type of vaginal/clitoral orgasm. I've heard of people (mostly women) having an orgasm from brushing their teeth or sneezing; this doesn't mean we should have articles on those purported orgasms, especially since they are not scientifically validated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I focus on the clitoris during sex with women. At any rate, your statement "If a woman has a vaginal/clitoral orgasm from exercising, it is simply a different type of vaginal/clitoral orgasm..." well this is your take on the subject, not exactly what the sources are saying. What I'm saying, and what the sources are saying, is that coregasms are indeed a type of orgasm, but a specific unusual type -- happens during exercise, happens without thinking romantic thoughts or imagining a partner, happens unintentionally -- and the subject is treated as a distinct topic by the sources (not like they're discussing orgasm and just happen to mention coregasm -- rather, they're talking about coregasms). There is not much scientific study of the phenomenon, but there is enough to justify a standalone article in my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

In the case of women, are the sources distinguishing a coregasm from a vaginal/clitoral orgasm? If not, I don't see why we should come to the conclusion that a coregasm is not a type of a vaginal/clitoral orgasm, especially if the orgasms happen in the vaginal/clitoral area. It is not my opinion that an orgasm is about what happens to the sexual organs and, subsequently, other parts of the body during the human sexual response cycle. It is not my opinion that many scientists state all female orgasms originate in the clitoris or are a result of some type of clitoral stimulation and therefore we really shouldn't be distinguishing between types of female orgasm. I'm trying to understand this coregasm topic and how, in women, it could possibly not be a vaginal/clitoral orgasm. If it's a genital orgasm, which is how an orgasm is usually defined, I fail to see how it is not simply a vaginal/clitoral orgasm brought on by exercise. Given this and that coregasm is not scientifically validated, I fail to see why this needs its own article. I won't actively pursue that it be merged with the Orgasm article, though. I see that Doc James has proposed the merge, so we will see how that goes. And Jytdog has significantly edited the article to improve it. From the discussion below, I also see that you don't agree with all of his edits. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Coregasm isn't just a medical subject

Of course there is a medical aspect to this story, namely, the biological mechanics of an exercise induced orgasm, and yes it has been studied by sex researchers such as Debby Herbenick and (briefly by) Alfred Kinsey. But there are many other angles here -- from pop culture, from exercise, from gym culture, from yoga. Consider that millions of adult women exercise daily. They watch TV; they read books by investigative journalist Emily Witt who writes about coregasm; they read Cosmopolitan and the Daily Mail. They do yoga. Like it or not, they're talking about coregasm -- they want to know if it's real, how it happens, what it feels like, how to have one. Now I can understand that contributor Jytdog, who works in the health care industry, and who has a long history of contributing positively to many medical subjects, has a disposition to strip out everything non-medical in the article, cutting out sources such as Cosmopolitan and removing the photo of Herbenick (a respected sex researcher who published her study in a peer-reviewed journal) and removing descriptions of how coregasms happen and what exercises are likely to induce them and . But, please, Wikipedia is not a medical encyclopedia -- rather it covers a wide variety of topics from many angles. So stripping this version (with the numerous angles) down to this version (a bare bones medical-type article) is going in the wrong direction. Wikipedia is not simply syringes and gauze pads.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The previous version distorted the actual science here chasing the celebrity/cosmo angle. the 2012 paper didn't use the term "coregasm" because a) lack of evidence that exercise-induced orgasm is actually dependent on use of the core muscles, and b) they studied more broadly "exercise-induced sexual pleasure" as well as "exercise-induced orgasm." The actual paper wasn't even cited much less described. it is a bad idea to describe science using popular media. If people want titillating bastardizations of science with quotes from models about their orgasms at the gym (for petes sake, really?!), they have the rest of the internet for that. As for "they want to know how to do it" see WP:NOTHOWTO. Indeed, "Wikipedia is not simply syringes and gauze pads" but it isn't Cosmo either. If you don't have access to the paper let me know and I will send it to you. Likewise the 1990 review. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Curious, how did this previous version distort the science? There was the Herbenick study, plus commentary on it from media sources -- it was balanced and reflected the general view of the subject. Now, after you've been feverishly editing this page you've brought it to a state of this version which reads like academic battling over details of published papers, such as what was in, what was concluded, what was not -- which is what none of the secondary sources talked about. What are you doing here? Can you see how your employment in health care has totally distorted the article as if Wikipedia was all about science? It is not. It is a general purpose encyclopedia and your contributions, while well-meaning, have mucked up this article into something that nobody wants to read and which misses what the subject is about. It has gone from a subject about women to something that a man would write. Can you see how statements like "but the authors didn't use it in the paper "because of a lack of evidence that these orgasms are necessarily linked to core muscle activity" border on original research? We're not scientists here. This isn't Medicalpedia or Healthpedia. It's Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

In the old version, where is the mention of sexual pleasure? where is the explicit discussion that we don't know if exercise-induced orgasm is actually dependent on use of the "core" muscles? If you slow down and actually read the current version, you cannot walk away with any sense of "academic battling" - there are no arguments or debates described. What all three of scientific papers cited say is that there is a lot we don't know about this, because this has not been well studied. Much bullshit is generated by claims of certainty where it doesn't exist, and quoting a source is very far from OR. You aren't engaging with what the article actually says now, and I don't know how to have a discussion with someone who isn't. Please re-read and reconsider. I look forward to a response after you do. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I looked at it once again (my eyes trying not to water over). Look, the material added is generally good -- it is good to have the viewpoint of science here, and academic discussions -- although frankly there isn't much. So I'm not talking about deleting anything here. But please try this -- step back from the article, and imagine you're not a man, not working in the health care field, that is, you're everyman or everywoman. Now, you read the term coregasm somewhere, or heard it on a talk show. You want to know what it is about. So you check Wikipedia. Now, you come across the current version of the article -- does it help you in your understanding? Not really -- it is like you've walked into the middle of a faculty meeting or academic discussion group among scholars about the subject. That is, the current version presumes that the reader is a (1) scientist or (2) academic or (3) health care professional wanting to learn about the current state of this subject. It is not what readers will need to know. My recommendation -- keep what you've added, but in a separate section about the history of the science -- but please restore the description from the other sources which I added a while back.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You have brought up this "written for a woman" thing in your first comment which I didn't address because I find what you seem to be saying... difficult. You ~seem~ to be claiming that for an article to be "woman friendly" it needs to be dumbed down and sexed-up cosmo-style with quotes from models. If - if - that is what you are saying, that is um... fairly offensive. If that is not what you are saying i apologize and ask that you please say what you mean more clearly. More generally, I always try to write in plain English - there are no fancy scientific/medical words here. "pelvic floor dysfunction" may be a bit, but I wikilinked that. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope, not what I'm saying at all; please don't change the subject here. I'm not a sexist. I'm a firm believer in women's rights, gender equality; I revamped Gender polarization. I've rescued countless biographies of women in Wikipedia. My concern is that 90%+ Wikipedia contributors are men, and this subject is primarily about women -- a subject they're loathe to write or talk about -- so it's something that we can all screw up if handled (sorry) improperly. What women might need to know -- such as how do coregasms happen? what types of exercises might cause one? how does it compare with clitoral/vaginal orgasms? what did it feel like? have any celebrities experienced them? -- all this information is stuff that women might need to know but you took it all out. So, in a sense, by your removal of information that I think will be important to women, is that you're applying a male-type bias here. My original version was not "dumbed down" but written for a general audience; now, after your numerous edits, it's semi- "scienced-up" with all the important information now missing. Saying I "sexed it up" the subject is nonsensical -- a coregasm is a type of orgasm, like sex. Now, what I'm saying is try to remove your medical bias-blinders and realize that the current article is way off the mark. What I propose doing is restoring the material you took out.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I am really struggling with a bunch of what you are bringing in here ... these claims you are making about what women want or as you say "need" and what they are and aren't afraid of doing. I appreciate the effort you are making and why (I think) you are doing it, but it is just too loaded on too many levels to engage with.

Trying to make this concrete... I guess the part you are most missing that is now gone is the "The experience'. That section was sourced almost entirely to popular media (including the Daily Mail for pete's sake).

Bottom line is sourcing (as it always is). Orgasms are biomedical information and we don't source biomedical information to popular media in WP. We also don't place a lot of WEIGHT on primary sources; we use them with great care, if it all (very much in line with every policy we have here). Instead we use reviews in the biomedical literature or statements by major medical or scientific bodies. We use textbooks sometimes; we very rarely reach for books.

Looking at high quality sources there is not a lot we can about this topic now, as there are none on point - the 1990 review was close (but so old) and the 2007 review was marginally related. We could, I guess, elaborate more on the findings of the 2012 study but that is really suboptimal as all we have is the primary source and it was one study and we don't know how the field is viewing it. At all. The latter thing is a major point. Just because the media goes all woo over something doesn't mean the field found it useful. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope, you're still not getting what I'm saying. You've got biomedical blinders for glasses. What you wrote, above, let me repeat -- Orgasms are biomedical information --that's the problem. Orgasms are NOT just biomedical information but they have cultural and physical aspects, how they feel, when they happen, who it happens to, when and why, particularly when they happen to women in public. You've removed everything else except the dry 'biomedical' stuff. And your bias leads you to think that sources like the Daily Mail, which has 1.5 million readers, with editors and reporters (a secondary source), is somehow invalid as if everything it writes is baloney. Ditto, Cosmopolitan, a magazine for women, (a secondary source) which when it writes about coregasms, thinks it is an important subject for women to know about. Please try to see that Wikipedia is more than a Medical encyclopedia, and that the subject of coregasm is more than a rundown of past academic analyses.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Tomwsulcer, please review the entries here. When I wrote "(including the Daily Mail for pete's sake)" I was expressing a very long held community consensus that this source is a tabloid that has no value in WP. As for biomedical, please read WP:Biomedical information. If you still don't agree after you have read those two things, we should seek dispute resolution on those two matters. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thats not true. If it was DM would have been blacklisted or alternatively some guideline against it. I have tracked your edits going back to April and you have used such health-centric, medical-centric, or science-centric arguments at least a hundred times. Your tendency towards medicalizing non-medical or tentatively-medical articles would make sense if this page was only under a medical wikiproject or if all the parent categories solely link to medicine. Thing is, the parent categories do not link only to medicinal categories, hence we should avoid assuming this article is solely health-related. Pwolit iets (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:BIOMED, WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS cover statements, not articles. Sizeofint (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

What statement is not biomedical information that you would like to source to general media? Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about this content -- it is sourced, it is not merely "biomedical information", it is relevant to the subject, it is what readers want to know, and it belongs in the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

There isn't an exception in MEDRS for crappy sources just for topics people want to know about. Biomedical content has to meet MEDRS period. Sizeofint (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough -- using biomedical criteria for biomedical content. But what we're saying is that coregasm as a subject is more than a mere biomedical subject -- there are many other aspects of it, as I've said for the umpeenth time -- the physical, cultural, sociological aspects, what it feels like, how many people experience it, how it happens, etc. And the sources for this content are perfectly adequate.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Tomwsucler, I asked about specific content. A dif to a big chunk of stuff isn't helpful. Please identify some specific statement that you think is not biomedical content and is appropriate encyclopedia content, and the relevant source(s) for it. I would be happy to discuss specific statements. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

example

The following is not pure biomedical content.

I agree, it is not pure biomedical content, but that is not grounds to remove it since it is well-referenced, relevant, verifiable -- the whole kit and kaboodle. As I've been saying, Wikipedia is not purely a Biomedical encyclopedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The experience

Model Jessica White.

Unlike an orgasm resulting from vaginal intercourse, a coregasm might feel "more dull, less intense, and more tingly", although it lasts about the same amount of time as a conventional orgasm. It generally happens when exercising the core abdominal muscles, such as when doing abdominal exercises, weight lifting, yoga, biking, running, walking or hiking, climbing a rope or pole, or spinning. It can occur with or without friction to the pelvic area. If it happens during yoga, it is sometimes called a yogasm. Women experiencing an orgasm in a public place sometimes felt self-conscious. An exercise believed to be likely in causing a coregasm is described as the captain's chair: this exercise begins with a woman putting her elbows on padded arm rests with her back against a firm support, and then lifting her legs to her chest repeatedly. Model Jessica White described a coregasm:

I was doing these squats one time, and I was like, ‘Oh my god, this is orgasmic.’ Maybe I was squeezing and doing my Kegels, I don’t know what it was. I had to go to the bathroom....

— Jessica White in 2016

Another respondent described the experience:

I had to really grind into the pedals. This must have caused me to rub on the seat in just the right away. I thought I was starting to cramp, but soon realized it felt great. [I] thought I should stop, but chose not to!

— Woman respondent, 2012

While the phenomenon has mostly been studied with women, according to the Indiana researchers, men can have coregasms too. Of those men who reported having a coregasm, they began having such experiences in childhood or adolescence, sometimes ejaculating without an erection, and sometimes as a result of climbing exercises.

References

-- --Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The part about "Women experiencing an orgasm in a public place sometimes felt self-conscious" might not be biomedical information, although again this kind of generalization is difficult as there is so little actual data; it may be that women who feel self-conscious about it are the tiny minority and saying this would be UNDUE weight and actually misleading, you see? so hm. The physiology of the orgasm (muscles involved, what kind of pleasure it is) are biomedical information and needs MEDRS sources. (especially, the statement about "It generally happens when exercising the core abdominal muscles" which is not supported by the actual primary scientific source (the 2012 paper), which says we don't have enough data to make general statements - this is exactly why using popular media to discuss science is a bad idea.) In my view quotes from models about their orgasms are not appropriate encyclopedic content, likewise the quote fro the unnamed person. I guess we can discuss whether the physiology is biomedical content or not at WT:MED. I am not sure where to bring the quote-from-a-model issue for DR. What do you think? Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

As I've said before, I think you see everything using medical glasses. Like, if there was an article about Water, you'd say it was a medical subject because people drink it and it has medical ramifications. Maybe this needs to go to COI noticeboard.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC) (remove bolding on "exactly" Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC))

Am trying to work with you with regard to specific content and sourcing; please respond to my notes on specific content and sourcing. This is a content dispute and WP:DR describes how to work out content disputes. If you want to personalize and claim that I have some COI and file a case at COIN you are free to do that of course, but my sense is that this will go no where. but of course, feel free. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

btw, really disappointed you cite the Daily Mail above... and that is not good for any argument you are making. As I noted above Daily Mail is flatly rejected by the community on a regular basis at plain old RSN..... Are you really insisting on using that? Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, you are not trying to work with anybody here. You have fixed ideas. You are not listening to what others are trying to tell you. Daily Mail is rejected by the biomedical community but it is useful in other contexts -- there are editors, reporters -- if it made stuff up, it would be out of business. It reflects what interests the public at large.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure I am trying to work this out. About Daily Mail, above I wrote "please review the entries here" - you clearly didn't click and look, or you would have seen that is a link the regular RSN - not people concerned with biomedical information at all. Just plain old RSN. It is going to be difficult to work this out, if you don't engage with basic things like this. And tomwsucler there is a great business in tabloids like Daily Mail and all kinds of other "sources of information" like examiner.com that the community has decided are unreliable under our basic RS standards. Whether they are a viable business has nothing to do with whether a source is OK here. In any case, I have suggested a couple of routes with regard to DR for some of the content above - I look forward to your response to those or some of your own. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Biomedical content in the water article (e.g. dehydration, waterborne diseases, medical uses) would indeed fall under MEDRS. It is the same deal here. When you're talking about how certain forms of exertion may result in certain physiological effects on the human body you need MEDRS sourcing rather than tabloids (which I wouldn't cite anyway purely on RS grounds). Sadly the Daily Mail has and does simply make up stuff and stays in business. Its coverage of global warming, for instance, is pretty much a misinformation campaign, [1][2][3] Sizeofint (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

But would you remove everything else from the water article because it was not purely biomedical content? That's what's happening here -- a contributor with a strong biomedical bent has removed everything that doesn't seem like biomedical content from the coregasm article, rending the current version exceedingly dull. And yes, I suppose the Daily Mail is not the best source, but still, what it says in its article on coregasm is echoed and confirmed by other sources -- it quotes the Indiana study (which is scientific and meets the MEDRS). If anything, the Daily Mail piece confirms that this subject is important to the public, otherwise, the DM wouldn't print it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

What removed content do you consider not to be biomedical content (other than the quotes which I think are simply WP:UNDUE)? Sizeofint (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The 'experience' section. Of course there are biomedical aspects but there are cultural, physical, experiential aspects which got removed, which I think are an important part of the story.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

We need to discuss specific statements. I already identified specific content in this section that appear to be biomedical informaion and offered to take this to DR; would you please respond to those specific discussions? If you don't find what i wrote specific enough please let me know. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Not worth my time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

merge discussion

is here: Talk:Orgasm#Merge_from_Coregasm Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)