Talk:Orgasm

Addition of gifs

Recent addition of gifs which show contractions that accompany orgasms in males and females was unfortunately reverted. These gifs are in complete accord with the overall subject of this article, which mentions the word 'contractions' nineteen times to explain orgasm. As Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, there is no need to remove these gifs as they are appropriate for this particular article and help in illustrating and understand the stated 'contractions'. The gifs complement the article's text and they may need to be treated in a more encyclopedic manner instead of outright removal per WP:GRATUITOUS. Hope to resolve this issue soon. Rim sim (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Two editors have already explained to you what WP policies they violate. Stating they are "in complete accord" with WP policy is thus not an objective statement, and is what is in contention here. I may be convinced that drastically shortened versions of the GIFs, with sufficient explanation as to the reason for their presence in the article, may be appropriate. But that is unlikely. Meanwhile, the current versions clearly are not. There is no reason why an article on orgasms needs to show a woman masturbating, or needs to show the same ejaculation three times in increasingly close-up, slow-motion views. The second GIF is not even of good quality, showing an awkward angle far different from the first one. (See, by comparison, the article on ejaculation, which uses a much more encyclopedic and appropriate GIF.) Please familiarize yourself with WP:GRATUITOUS, particularly whether the GIFs actually "increase the reader's understanding of the article's subject matter", and whether they give a "distorted idea of the subject". In addition to the above issues, I believe they fail both requirements: these images do not illustrate an orgasm, but rather the typical physiological responses that accompany one, conflating a reader's understanding of what one actually is. It is not possible to directly illustrate an orgasm, and trying to do so detracts from the subject matter. Please also review the last paragraph of WP:GRATUITOUS which specifically addresses topics similar to this one. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

A few paragraphs from the article which talk about the 'contractions' that accompany orgasms:

In women:

Women's orgasms have been estimated to last, on average, approximately 20 seconds, and to consist of a series of muscular contractions in the pelvic area that includes the vagina, the uterus, and the anus.

Researchers from the University Medical Center of Groningen in the Netherlands correlated the sensation of orgasm with muscular contractions occurring at a frequency of 8–13 Hz centered in the pelvis and measured in the anus. ... They assert that they have identified "[t]he first objective and quantitative measure that has a strong correspondence with the subjective experience that orgasm ultimately is" and state that the measure of contractions that occur at a frequency of 8–13 Hz is specific to orgasm.

In men:

As a man nears orgasm during stimulation of the penis, he feels an intense and highly pleasurable pulsating sensation of neuromuscular euphoria. These pulsating sensations originate from the contractions of pelvic floor muscles that begin in the anal sphincter and travel to the tip of the penis.

During orgasm, a human male experiences rapid, rhythmic contractions of the anal sphincter, the prostate, and the bulbospongiosus muscles of the penis. ... Except for in cases of a dry orgasm, contraction of the sphincter and prostate force stored semen to be expelled through the penis's urethral opening. The process takes from three to ten seconds and produces a pleasurable feeling. Ejaculation may continue for a few seconds after the euphoric sensation gradually tapers off.

The two GIFs[1] that were added clearly illustrate the above mentioned 'contractions' — one in a female and another in a male; and they are placed appropriately in the articles body under text which describes them, thus enabling the reader understand what these 'contractions' actually look like. Denying people to see them in an article which specifically addresses them ('contractions' is mentioned 19 times in the article) reeks of prudishness. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, if the media is appropriate with the content of an article, then it need not be removed even if some people find it objectionable. If allowed, they could well go onto get everything related to sexuality removed on WP using semantics. Rim sim (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Restored the GIFs with more informative encyclopedic text. If too many people find them not necessary, then we can remove them. Rim sim (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't replied because I am not persuaded by your response and have been waiting for other editors to weigh in. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If you're not allowed to show contractions that accompany orgasms in an article that specifically talks about them, then there's nothing much one can do to persuade some crude prude minds. Waste of time! Rim sim (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Revisiting an earlier discussion

The above editor incorrectly assumed that, because multiple editors disagreed on the use of low-quality GIFs to illustrate orgasm in both sexes, that none would be allowed at all - despite explanation to the contrary. I do believe that GIFs illustrating the contractions and other processes that occur concurrent with orgasm could be informative, if the GIFs were of sufficient quality and sufficiently encyclopedic in nature. I would propose, for example, the lower right corner of File:Vulva during orgasm.gif along with File:Ejaculation.ogv. Would these improve the article? Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE. Zefr (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

That's fair. I actually brought it up because several of the foreign-language wikis on the same subject do have such GIFs. Ah well, I'm content to leave well enough alone. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

please put the painting back

it was awesome and perfectly captured the subject matter! 50.108.10.65 (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Lead image

We should reach a consensus over the lead image, or lack thereof. MOS:LEADIMAGE is the relevant guideline.

I support having no image, as is permitted per the first bullet point there. This seems like a good example of an article that has "no easy representation". The Vixen poster seems too sexually suggestive and unencyclopedic and I am strongly against it.

If people really want an image, I guess now's a time to gather candidates for an RfC (for which "no image" should be an option). Crossroads ^-talk- 23:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC is certainly preferred over the passive edit war that is currently occurring. I support either no image or an image that is unambiguously encyclopedic; agreed that the Vixen poster probably is not a good choice. I saw no problem with the prior painting; other classical art pieces might also be a fit. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The prior painting (Szał, Podkowiński) was such an excellent and tasteful balance for an encyclopedia. It should be restored. Glenohumeral13 (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)