Talk:Post-coital tristesse

Roll over and sleep?

Is this related to the tendency to wanna sleep right after sex? --TiagoTiago (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No. This is not a feeling of being tired, it is a feeling of depression, sadness, or melancholy immediately after ejaculation. It's not for any emotional reason, it just happens. VisaBlack (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

i'd be inclined to disagree with all of these descriptors and replace them all with apathy. i think sleepy boy would also. when and where any of these descriptors might be the case is in sexual mutations where female instincts gain representation in males. 166.175.58.73 (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference to Ovid

Your refernece to Ovid [5] is useless, since GoogleBooks' new policy does not offer access to the text any more. Perhaps another source of Ovid's text may be found? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.175.103.96 (talk) 08:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not just cite the book directly? 71.82.229.40 (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• In general, why does the article ask you to read the sources "for more" rather than actually giving information from those sources like a, you know, encyclopedia article? Morgan Wick (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Gender prevalence

I did extensive research into whether any credible research on the relative gender prevalence has been done. The original citation (which I have retained in my new paragraph) refers to a book which describes gender disparity in the refractory period; however, the refractory period is a separate phenomenon. The book contains no reference to PCT or any post-coital psychological effects of the sort. Moreover, the only scientific article on the subject had an all-female subject pool.

As such, I removed the sentence claiming gender disparity, and added a new paragraph discussing the misconception. Jhugh95 (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Jhugh95, I reverted you because, like I stated in that revert, the refractory period is more common among men tha[n] women. The vast majority of the research defines it around men's sexuality, not women's." This is clear by the references in the Refractory period (sex) article, which includes references I added to that article. The only time that the refractory period is defined in women is when researchers define it differently than how it is usually defined, and that is clear by the Refractory period (sex) article. That stated, I realized soon afterward that your edit was not relaying that research states nothing about the prevalence of the refractory period between genders, but rather the prevalence of post-coital tristesse between genders. You added: "Although research has been done on the relative prevalence of the refractory period between genders, the degree to which the refractory period affects PCT is not known, nor is the relative gender prevalence of PCT."

Post-coital tristesse and the refractory period are not completely separate phenomenon; they are related. But you are obviously correct that they are not the same thing. I see that with this edit, an IP added the reference in question. I removed the line and reference, but there are a few references on Google Books commenting on a gender disparity with regard to this topic; see this Google Books search link ("Post-coital tristesse more common among men"); the first source (Night Thoughts: Reflections of a Sex Therapist, 1995, by Avodah K. Offit) I currently see there attributes post-coital tristesse more to women than to men. When choosing any of those sources, editors should make sure that the sources are Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS)-compliant. Sex guide sources, unless written by experts in the field of sexology or in their relevant field of the sexual topic in question, are usually poor sources for sexual information. Flyer22 (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Why exactly do you not want the paragraph I added in the article? You seem to agree that the original line was unsourced (because the source was misread), but I'm not sure why you oppose discussing the difference between refractory period and tristesse, and that there is significant gender disparity research one one but not the other. Could you clarify?

Even if you think it's inappropriate to discuss the absence of reseach (I honestly don't have enough experience to definitively judge when a "there is a lack of research" discussion is in order for a topic or not), there should still be a sentence noting the difference between tristesse and refractory periods, because it's a common misconception. I'm going re-add that without anything on gender prevalence, and leave the topic of gender prevalence research up for further discussion.

The original source is a book by Masters and Johnson, who are extremely prominent and well-recognized academic figures in sexology (though that name did not exist while they were doing their research.) It heavily cites their own and other people's research. I haven't read the reliable source document in full yet so I'm not re-adding it, but I'll read it later, and I'm pretty sure it would meet those requirements. Jhugh95 (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Jhugh95 (last time pinging you to this discussion via WP:Echo because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), the reason that I reverted you and then deleted the text is because the gender disparity matter was unsourced. I thought that (why I deleted the text) was clear from what I stated to you above. Unless you know for certain that there is no information about a gender disparity, you should not be adding information about there being none. In other words, the WP:Burden goes both ways in this case. Even if you did know for certain that there is no information about a gender disparity, that matter should be sourced with a WP:Reliable source if it is to be included in the article. Furthermore, as noted, I easily located a source above noting that there is a gender disparity...but that it's women who are more affected by post-coital tristesse. As for adding a comparison between post-coital tristesse and the refractory period: Unless there are WP:Reliable sources noting that the two matters are confused, you should not add anything to the article distinguishing them. So I disagree with this edit of yours; not to mention...it has WP:Overlinking that I will soon take care of. I routinely work on Wikipedia sexual topics and am very familiar with the literature on many (perhaps most) sexual topics, so, yes, I know who Masters and Johnson are. That Masters and Johnson are discussing the refractory period in a source does not mean that a comparison between the refractory period and post-coital tristesse should be made. Also, the Refractory period (sex) article is already linked in the See also section; readers can click on it there and learn more about it. And, per WP:See also, if a topic is already linked higher in the article, it should not also be linked in the See also section. Flyer22 (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Update: After this edit by Kinban (talk · contribs), which led to this, this and this tweak by me, I am reminded of the term post-coital dysphoria (PCD), which I've considered a synonym for post-coital tristesse (PCT); this and Kinban's edit is why I added that term to this article as a WP:Alternative title and redirected post-coital dysphoria to this article. If anyone, such as James Cantor and/or KateWishing, feel that these two terms are treated differently, then do state so here. It might even be the case that the term post-coital tristesse is used more so with regard to women, and post-coital dysphoria is used more so with regard to men; I state that because sources on Google Books show that post-coital dysphoria is mostly discussed in relation to men, and state that it's more common in men. For example, this 2008 Kaplan & Sadock's Concise Textbook of Clinical Psychiatry source from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pages 324-325. But if you look at the media sources using that term, they seem to mainly focus on women. Hmm. Either way, there appears to be better sources for the topic when it's termed post-coital dysphoria, and this article can obviously be expanded with sources that are better than the few it currently has. It can also include a Society and culture section, as advertised at WP:MEDMOS#Sections. Flyer22 (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

hazelkazan

The reference to Galen is manifestly and grossly incorrect. There is just no extant text by Galen containing the quoted statement, and the reference cited in this article fails to provide any source for the quotation - it merely repeats a traditional and oft-repeated convention. The best that can be said is that “Post coitum omne animal triste” is a Latin saying (probably originating in the Middle Ages), and that it is often ascribed, though in all cases without evidence, to Galen. This also applies to all of its permutated and extended forms (for instance, “except the rooster, who crows”, “except the rooster and the woman”), none of which has any legitimate claim to priority, authenticity, or Galenian authorship.

The idea (as opposed to the quote) has been traced by the historian Gerhard Fichtner to a sentence in the “Problemata” of Aristotle (a work whose Aristotelian authorship is however in dispute). It reads:

“After sexual intercourse most people tend to be despondent.”

(Bekker Number 955a, translated by E.S. Forster in “The Works of Aristotle”, Oxford 1927) (Fichtner, Jahrbuch der Psychoanalyse, No. 45, 2002; abstract clickable at https://www.frommann-holzboog.de/periodika/941/941004520) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.142.216 (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the man is very tired, but anything but sad ...

I suspect that most men do not feel sadness / tristesse, but are happy and very tired, are pleased and exhausted for five or ten minutes. Post-coital tristesse - a culturally conditioned cliché? See: German: Postkoitale Müdigkeit https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postkoitale_M%C3%BCdigkeit 2003:E8:5BC8:D003:15B8:ACD1:D35A:57E6 (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your speculations as to how men feel after sex. Can't be a real phenomenon if you suspect otherwise. 98.115.255.240 (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

"Post-nut clarity" an opposite?

I wouldn't dismiss the previous section so quickly. The source we give for "post-nut clarity" in fact contrasts it with postcoital dysphoria, and describes much more positive feelings ("Dudes know it's real (and love it)"). That said, clarity can be a negative feeling too in some contexts, so maybe for some, there is no contradiction here.

Whether or not there is a more official medical term for this phenomenon, I'm not sure whether we could cover it here as an opposite effect, whether it would be better treated on its own, or whether it fails notability standards. Pinging Knightoftheswords281, who added the content, and notifying WP:MED. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Cosmopolitan's description surprised me - I thought "post-nut clarity" referred to someone realizing they actually didn't want to have sex with the person that brought (gifted?) the 'nut', because pre-nut judgement was clouded by sexual arousal, or something to that effect. Cosmopolitan presents it as (almost) exclusively positive.

Austin Urology Institute says: "Post-nut clarity is when you experience some sort of guilt following climax, primarily over how you achieved orgasm. This feeling could be the result of having an affair, watching pornography, or hooking up with a friend or coworker."

A non-medical source, but decent for colloquialisms (2nd entry, which is a bit more elaborate): "The immediate clear mindedness or soberness an individual gains after orgasming (busting a nut). Can be achieved via pre-bating (mastubating before a date/ encounter to reduce sexual urges.) Also refers to the phenomena when an individual loses interest in a person after they have sex with them."

It appears to me it's not the same as post-coital tristesse. It seems more specific and less tied to emotions. Could be a sub-section?

Looking through Google, it does seem to pass the notability standards (Cosmopolitan, multiple big newspapers, a Urology institute, and lots of votes on Urban Dictionary for whatever it's worth) Douweziel (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

"Post nut clarity" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Post nut clarity has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 23 § Post nut clarity until a consensus is reached. A smart kitten (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)