![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 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)
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).
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)
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)
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'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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 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)
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).
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)
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)
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'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)