Talk:Orgasm gap

Coinage of the term

I'd like to know who first coined the term "orgasm gap". Many of the earliest sources cited here, such as Passmore 1954, don't mention it. Andrea Owen (2019) p. 255 attributed it to Laurie B. Mintz, but without a date, let alone evidence: 'Laurie Mintz, sexual psychologist, has coined the term orgasm gap...'. I haven't found anyone else saying who coined it, but Mintz is an unlikely candidate for multiple reasons. First, her CV states she did not graduate until 1982, and her first publications that explicitly mention the orgasm gap date from 2018, and all other references to orgasm go back no further than 2017. Meanwhile, Google Scholar and Google Books trace the oldest mentions of "orgasm gap" to at least the 1990s. Let's consider a few:

• The oldest I could find is a doubtful 1967 reference in Continuum, Volume 5, a periodical of Saint Xavier College (now Saint Xavier University, Chicago), published 1963–1970, 1990–present. The context is very vague about what the term – mentioned in quotation marks – means.
• The first secure mention is in Michael W. Eysenck, Happiness: Facts and Myths (1990) p. 33.: '...a grand total of 1,523 before he got married, whereas the average American girl was lagging far behind with only 223 orgasms. This sevenfold difference may appear to confirm the greater sexuality of the male, but more recent evidence shows conclusively that the “orgasm gap” is closing fast. Our rapid perusal of history suggests that most of the allegedly...'. Although still mentioned in quotation marks, this strongly suggests the term was already established by then, which is certainly recognised, and perhaps mentioned in the study of gender disparity in American premarital orgasms he is referring to. Moreover, the mentioning of 'more recent evidence' suggests that this study was conducted several years before 1990, and another study or two was conducted closer to 1990.
• A review of Marcia and Lisa Douglass' 1997 book Are We Having Fun Yet?: The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Sex (which Google Scholar has as the earliest search result for "orgasm gap") in the Weekly World News issue of 26 August 1997, p. 40–41 is the first full view document I can find, and also the first that mentions the term without quotation marks, an indication that it has become widely accepted: 'Seventy-five percent of men have orgasms in partner sex on a regular basis, but only 29 percent of women do. It is difficult to imagine men accepting sex that excluded their orgasm. Yet because women have learned to accept this double standard, the orgasm gap has hardly budged over decades of social change.' It goes on to claim: 'But the orgasm gap is rarely discussed. It is simply accepted as the way sex is.' So despite having become an accepted term, at least within scholarly circles, it was apparently not widely discussed in society yet. It is probably worth trying to figure out which study found this '29/75 gap', as it is mentioned again in Karp & Stoller (1999) p. 83.

The earliest references to 'orgasm gap' make no mention of Mintz or vice versa. It seems that she is only a relatively recent (late 2010s) populariser of a term that could date from the 1960s, but more likely mid-1980s, that became accepted in the mid-1990s. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The '1,523' male and '223' female orgasms achieved before marriage in the U.S. statistic turns out to derive from the 1953 Kinsey Report, p. 520 (this is a 1998 reprint). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

One page earlier, p. 519, Kinsey et al. describe this phenomenon as 'differences in frequencies of orgasm', which we might consider the/a linguistic ancestor of the 'orgasm gap' term that became established decades later. Given the fame/notoriety of the Kinsey Reports when they were published, they have probably had a powerful impact on American discourse about sexuality. I now think it a bit more likely that Continuum in 1967 may already have used "orgasm gap" as shorthand for what the 1953 Kinsey Report observed about the 'differences in frequencies of orgasm', although they probably wouldn't have been the first to use this shorthand (no pun intended). I also note that Passmore 1954 (the oldest source currently used in this article) is actually a review of the 1953 Kinsey report. I think it's fair to take the 1953 Kinsey report as the start of research into the orgasm gap for the purposes of this article, even if they didn't 'coin' the term as it was later abbreviated. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The 75/29 statistic

A little warning to everyone: I've traced the 75/29 statistic that has frequently been referred to as an or the example of the orgasm gap (e.g. in 1997 and 1999, see above) to Laumann et al. 1994, p. 130. This statistic appears to be frequently misrepresented by people who have misinterpreted the study, probably because they don't really understand Table 3.8B (or they based their misrepresentation on a misrepresentation by someone else who didn't understand it).

• Virginia A. Sadock (1995) in JAMA summarised the statistic as '75% of men always experience orgasm compared with 28.6% of women', omitting to mention this only refers to spouses in heterosexual marriages (although she did report the accurate percentage of '28.6%' rather than the rounded '29%').
• Weekly World News (26 August 1997) summarised the statistic as 'Seventy-five percent of men have orgasms in partner sex on a regular basis, but only 29 percent of women do,' omitting to mention this only refers to spouses in heterosexual marriages, and rounding 28.6% to 29%.
• Karp & Stoller (1999) p. 83 summarised the statistic as 'while 75 percent of men report having orgasms during partner sex on a regular basis, only 29% of women do,' distorting 'heterosexual marital sex' to 'partner sex', 'always' to 'on a regular basis', and rounding 28.6% to 29%.
  

I could go on, but it should be clear by now that Laumann et al. 1994 is frequently misunderstood and misrepresented, and we need to make sure it is not, even if multiple sources agree with each other in misrepresenting the study. (Obviously, this applies to all studies we wish to use in this article, and on Wikipedia as a whole).

I also first thought that 'R' was an abbreviation of Receiver/Receiving, and 'P' was an abbreviation of Performer/Performing, because these terms are regularly used in the preceding pages (e.g. 'Women report lower rates of giving oral sex to than receiving it from their cohabitational or longer-term male partners, but the differences are modest (similar to the men). Women agree with men that in shorter-term relationships they are more likely usually/always to perform oral sex than are their male partners.' (p. 129). But Table 3.8C on the next pages indicates that 'R = respondent' and 'P = partner'. It has nothing to do with receiving or performing. R is what the participants in the study (the respondents) say about their own orgasm rate, and P is what they think their partner's orgasm rate was. Therefore, I'm changing the text to: 'A 1994 study by Laumann et al. found that 75.0% of men and 28.6% of women always had orgasms with their spouse, while 40.2% of men and 79.7% of women thought their spouse always orgasmed during sex. These rates were different in non-marital straight relationships (cohabitational, long-term and short-term heterosexual relationships), with rates increasing to 80.5% for men and 43.0% for women orgasming during sex with their short-term partners, and 69.3% for men and 82.6% for women thinking their short-term partners always orgasmed.' Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

PS: Incidentally, one could argue that the discrepancies between the male/female Respondents' reported rate of orgasming and their perceived rate of their Partners' orgasming also represents an orgasm gap. E.g. 40.2% of men thought their wife always orgasmed, but only 28.9% of women having sex with their husbands said they actually always orgasmed. All other factors being equal, that would be perceptive orgasm gap of 11.3%. (Many of those women may have pretended, although Laumann et al. didn't ask about pretending. It could also simply be misperception). On the other hand, 79.7% of women thought their husband always orgasmed during sex, but only 75.0% of men having sex with their wives said they actually always orgasmed; a more modest, but significant perceptive orgasm gap of 4.7%. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Nederlandse Leeuw, if we abide by WP:VERIFY and WP:STICKTOSOURCE, as we should, an important thing to do in a case like this is to find a reliable source saying that Laumann et al. 1994 is frequently misunderstood and misrepresented. While the research you've done on this is admirable, we must avoid engaging in original research and providing our own analyses of what the sources mean. Additionally, I understand wanting to cite the original study instead of the secondary and tertiary sources if the secondary and tertiary sources have gotten the information wrong, but we still have to avoid providing our own interpretations. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I agree with you. I wouldn't use Laumann et al. 1994 to write anything about the 'perceptive orgasm gap' I'm suggesting above here; obviously that would constitute original research. It's just an observation that might come in handy later if anyone likes to read and perhaps write about that further in the future. I find it likely that some researcher somewhere has studied this question, in which case we should quote that source rather than Laumann. And thanks for the compliment, I appreciate it. :) Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for your work on the article. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The Five Thirty Eight article mentions the 'perception gap', but not in a very scholarly way yet. They mostly speculate. I presume there must be a good source that has studied this in depth. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Trimming citations

Sorry @Enlightenedstranger0:, but your recent edits were not a proper way of applying WP:CITETRIM. You're breaking citations and removing relevant sources. Let's discuss this here on the talk page first. I agree that trimming may be a good idea, but this is not the way to do it. We must either merge citations, or remove duplicates, or write new sentences to summarise some sources separate from others. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Nederlandse Leeuw, it's not that trimming may be a good idea. It is a good idea. There's no excuse for that many citations beside one sentence. I was gracious enough to leave four references beside a few sentences, but more than four is too much. We should re-trim all of that. As for breaking citations, there are bots that handle that. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It depends, we should do it carefully, on a case-by-case basis. I don't know where you base the number of 'four' on; there is no consensus on how many citations is considered 'excessive'. Even WP:CITEKILL, that you yourself have invoked, does not mention a specific maximum, but merely does a few suggestions. For example: 'more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations.' It explicitly states that sometimes more than four citations are necessary, in spite of you claiming 'more than four is too much'. You can't invent your own rules out of thin air and then apply them as you see fit. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You say it depends, but all of the articles that are put together well on Wikipedia don't include five or more references beside multiple sentences. Experienced editors always trim the excessive citations. If they don't trim them, they at least bundle them. WP:CITEKILL says, "A good rule of thumb is to cite at least one inline citation for each section of text that may be challenged or is likely to be challenged, or for direct quotations. Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations." I didn't say "at least four." That wasn't my argument. I said I was gracious enough to leave four beside a few sentences and that more than four is too much. More than four isn't always too much, but it usually is. In the rare cases it's not, bundling is the way to go. Why do you think it's good to have up to six to eight (or more than that) unbundled references beside a single sentence? I don't know why you've chose to take the provocative tone you have about "inventing my own rules out of thin air," but I'm very sure most experienced editors would agree with me that there's currently unwarranted excessive citations on the page, which messes with readability and ease of editing. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Ten unbundled references beside a single sentence in the lead? Really? Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your reply is riddled with logical fallacies. "Articles that are put well together" and "experienced editors" are No True Scotsman fallacies, implying that articles with more citations than you like are "not well put together", and that editors who do that are "not experienced". Neither of these are based on Wikipedia policies, but mere opinions. Besides, I have no way to verify your level of experience, as your account is only a few months old (claiming to have lost your previous account's password without mentioning which account that was, which could amount to sockpuppetry). I'm not defending any number of citations in particular, so that's a straw man fallacy. I've said it all depends on the situation, just like WP:CITE does (that you invoked). I'd like to remind you that I'm not the cause of this high number of citations in this article, they were already here when I started improving it. I actually agree with you that that number of cites in the lede is probably unnecessary (perhaps none even belong behind that sentence in particular, because the statement is so generic), and I've already removed one and was examining others. It's okay to be looking at the added value of each one, and to see what we can best do with them instead of indiscriminately removing a whole lot merely because of the amounts. Finally, I would like to say sorry that you found the tone of that last remark provocative. It was an expression of frustration that I should have worded differently. I was trying to get you to cite specific rules or policies which support your views, as I have found them mostly unfounded so far. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

PS: On second review, I take back the suggestion of sockpuppetry. You've complied to WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, so I've got no reason to distrust you. You've got 9 months of experience. I've got 14 years. I don't think your "experienced editors" arguments will work very well on me. ;) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I see that in the day since I've been away, you haven't taken any measures to reduce the excessive citations in this article. Instead, you've taken on a confrontational tone and have asserted things such as "your reply is riddled with logical fallacies." You're wrong. I've read many Wikipedia discussions about excessive citations, and all of them have resulted in the excessive citations being removed or bundled. The ones that provide additional information and may be helpful are bundled if they appear excessive. The reasons for reduction of excessive citations include readability, ease of editing, and a more professional presentation. The arguments for excessive citations don't appear to ever hold up. When I speak of "articles that are put together well on Wikipedia", I'm especially including WP:FA and WP:GA caliber in that category. Your editing experience doesn't appear to include a lot of experience with the site's policies, guidelines, and widely used essays. Perhaps we should move on to WP:DR since you're certain your stance is the correct one? Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Look, there is no obligation to reduce citations in this article if there aren't any policies that give specific requirements that this article supposedly doesn't meet, let alone that you can place this obligation on me in particular, let alone in this situation if you can't show that these policies even exist. What I read are fallacies, excuses, instead of invocations of actual policies. The only thing you've actually invoked is an essay, not an official policy, and it doesn't even say what you claim it says. Therefore, I'm not taking any 'measures' that I don't need to. I don't 'own' this article any more than you do; it's in our collective care, and therefore we need to abide by the community's policies. If you wish to improve this article, fine; I've given tips how you can move citations by expanding the text, or remove specific citations that don't have added value on a case-by-case basis. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Obligation isn't the issue. If there was an obligation, I wouldn't place it on you. You are the one, however, who unnecessarily undid my citation reduction and have refused to remedy the issue. I was WP:BOLD, explaining why I reduced the citations. WP:CITEKILL says exactly what I said it does. You can't dismiss it as "an essay, not an official policy" when it's widely used and when articles that are attended to by those who edit well don't allow such a citation method. You undid my bold edits and didn't offer any good reason, let alone a policy-based reason, for undoing them. Per WP:APPNOTE, I'll ask for feedback at Talk:Orgasm. This will be my first step in the dispute resolution process. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

See WP:CITEBUNDLE for the correct way to handle multiple citations for an assertion. References should be retained if they are helpful (and reliable, presumably per WP:MEDRS for this topic). One reference would be enough for simple topics but there is no exact science here and there would need to be a reason to remove references beyond an urge to be tidy. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Having 10 citation markers for a single sentence is very unusual and looks strange. They could be bundled, or they could be trimmed to the best ones, but either way it should be fixed. I doubt the matter is so controversial that 10 references are necessary to prove it (and too many may give the impression of trying too hard). Crossroads ^-talk- 04:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Johnuniq, and I'm okay with the suggestion of Johnuniq and Crossroads to bundle rather than remove citations. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it your intention to imply that Johnuniq and Crossroads didn't make the same arguments I made about bundling? I do recall saying that in the rare cases that more than four citations isn't excessive, "bundling is the way to go" and "the ones that provide additional information and may be helpful are bundled if they appear excessive." But I didn't say all of the citations should be bundled, and neither did Johnuniq and Crossroads. As for assessing whether we should keep any of the citations, I did assess. Observe the first bunch I removed from the lead. I removed media and news sources. I looked at the sources I chose to cut, and I knew that any citation I broke would be fixed by a bot. The broken citations wouldn't be broken for long. They weren't going to be lost. Whether I re-trim the sources the way I did before or without breaking citations makes no difference. The latter way just means putting in a little more effort. We could discuss re-adding any source I remove, or using it to replace an existing source in the article. But none of the statements in the article require more than three citations. Almost none require more than one. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Past tense for snapshots

I've just translated this article to Dutch Wikipedia as nl:Orgasmekloof, and in the process, I decided to change the present tense of many sentences to past tense, sometimes adding 'in the [20th and] early 21st century,', because these studies are snapshots. That is: they represent a state of affairs of a certain time (and place), they may not be eternal truths, unchangeable facts, because people's behaviour could change. Although some authors claim that the orgasm gap doesn't seem to change, others claim that it is closing. Either way, studies can only observe an orgasm gap in a given population in a given time in a given place. Although some facts of biology may never change (e.g. PVI may well remain an unreliable method for women to achieve orgasms, unless the human body somehow evolves to make it easier, which probably takes centuries, or if we invent new technology to make it artificially easier), culture changes all the time, especially with the acquirement of knowledge and the raising of awareness. Therefore, those observation results which are likely to potentially change in future studies should be phrased in past tense, sometimes perhaps with a date or period of observation so that the reader knows when a certain state of affairs applied, and which ones are likely to still apply in the present day and the future. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I think this does a disservice to the information and therefore to readers. Framing it in the past tense, as though it is no longer true or may no longer be true, when multiple studies spanning decades show it to be true, is challenging the research on baseless grounds. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, we shouldn't write like this. Even with evidence to the contrary, we wouldn't say "research in the 20th and early 21st century indicated." Please see WP:CRYSTAL. We don't write for the world we think may exist years from now. Imagine if we wrote HIV/AIDS or other sexually transmitted infection information this way. Or COVID-19 information this way. While the citations thing may not need to go to WP:DR and I can just take care of that myself in a way you'll approve of, I think you'll challenge me if I revert your decision to "change the present tense of many sentences to past tense." Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is exactly why I've rewritten some statements from present to past tense, because they may no longer be true in the future. Much of the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 statistics are also snapshots, because these diseases can mutate, and the human response to them is constantly changing, and so do the incidence rates. (E.g. we cannot say '5 million people around the world have HIV/AIDS', and then cite a source from 2000; we should write: 'In 2000, 5 million people around the world had HIV/AIDS'.). The orgasm gap may or may not grow wider or smaller; we cannot predict that. We can only refer to sources who have observed how large it was in a given population at a given time. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't accept that explanation. It's using WP:CRYSTAL in the reverse. Per WP:APPNOTE, I'll ask for feedback at Talk:Orgasm, just like I will for the trimming citations discussion. This will be my first step in the dispute resolution process. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The statements being made are very general, and there is no evidence they no longer apply, so they should not be framed as though it is a phenomenon from the past only. For example, with "In the early 21st century, heterosexual activity depicted in mainstream media and pornography was predominantly centred on male pleasure...", it is erroneously being implied that this is a "was" and is no longer true with zero support in reliable sources for this, and it's odd since we are in the early 21st century. It is not specific figures being named in the sentence, and this is not an infectious disease that will naturally evolve on its own, so I see no reason to add these phrases. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm I see what you mean. I was trying to say "X has been the case so far", rather than "X is the case". I didn't mean to say "X was the case" in order to imply "(but X is no longer the case)". Is there a better way of saying "X has been the case so far" throughout this article? And of course it's not a "disease" that can evolve on its own; I was arguing along the analogy that it could evolve as a cultural phenomenon if the awareness and behaviour of humans change, mostly through sex education (or the lack thereof). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Normally still existent social phenomena are spoken of in the present tense, like racism. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)