Talk:Orgasm/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Link for anorgasmic ejaculation in the "in males" section

The link for anorgasmic ejaculation links to anorgasmia, which, some could argue, is not equivalent to anorgasmic ejaculation. In my experience, the use of anorgasmia in reference to males typically encompasses the act of ejaculation and orgasm, such that those suffering from anorgasmia are unable to reach either state (unable to ejaculate or orgasm despite desire and stimulation). Including a subsection on the anorgasmia wiki page and rerouting this link to said subsection would unequivocally clear this up. The link is unchanged as of now (1/26/14), since I only have my opinions and past experiences to cite, as opposed to any credible evidence. 76.17.206.143 (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2014‎ (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Orgasm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130106211856/http://www.uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/CWLUArchive/vaginalmyth.html to http://www.uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/CWLUArchive/vaginalmyth.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrograde Ejaculation Source?

"This can, however, lead to retrograde ejaculation, i.e., redirecting semen into the urinary bladder rather than through the urethra to the outside." Is there any source for this? As as far as I can tell it is a completely unsubstantiated claim, that solely circulates in message boards without any medical evidence - if it circulates at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElricMelvar (talk • contribs) 21:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed it for now. I notice that in the Causes section of the Retrograde ejaculation article, the following statement is currently there: "Retrograde ejaculation can also result from pinching closed the urethral opening, to avoid creating a mess upon ejaculation (known as Hughes' technique)." It's sourced to Mavis Jukes (2002). The guy book: an owner's manual for teens: safety, maintenance, and operating instructions for teens. New York: Crown Publishers. p. 16.

I'll look into this later. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Addition of sources.

"Orgasm in non-human animals has been studied significantly less than orgasm in humans, but research on the subject is ongoing." does not appear to be adequately sourced. It doesn't seem to be an implausible claim, but I'd be curious if anybody had a source for it.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Date format

Dl2000, regarding this and this, will you explain why you think I am under any obligation to stick with Template:Use dmy dates instead of Template:Use mdy dates? Although the dmy template was in the article, the article was clearly using mdy style. And then you came along and changed it, when all you really had to do was change the template to mdy. MOS:DATERETAIN states, "If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page." Well, this article evolved using the mdy format, and that is because I am American. Looking at your contributions, you clearly prefer dmy style, but you are not the one who has been editing this article for years. Looking at your talk page, such as here and here, I see that you have been addressed about this type of thing before. You cannot force editors to use the style you prefer. And you really should not be templating significantly experienced editors such as myself over something like this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• Flyer22 Reborn - Just to note this editor did the exact same thing with me a few weeks ago[1] ("repair improper tests/wreckage") ... Only difference was I never got a fancy warning!, Looking through their edit summary they seem to do this with everyone[2] .... Maybe a trip to ANI might be in order?. –Davey2010^Talk 19:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe. I did think of WP:ANI, but I want to try to discuss the matter first. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn This article's the predominant format was much different four years ago, so your recent changes (which were not explained/justified by an edit summary) seemed inappropriate, namely that MOS:DATERETAIN works against you here. It is appreciated that you take a certain ownership of the article, so will not plan to edit the article further; it's certainly not going to go to an edit war. However, my edit summaries and user warning approach should not have been done the way they were in these cases, so many regrets. Mistakes happen on occasion, therefore it's time to go and do some fixing up of the review/countervand process. Dl2000 (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Dl2000, it is not a recent change since it is not only recently that I have been using mdy at this article. At times, the article may get editors changing the date style back to dmy style, but they are drive-by editors. I am the main editor of the article, and stating so is not me trying to own it. It's me letting you know that the article has naturally evolved to use mdy style and I should not have to be forced to use dmy style when I'm the main one editing the article and when there were no objections to me using mdy style. I didn't check to see what style was most predominant at the beginning of the article or four years ago (although I've been editing the article for longer than four years). I simply focused on improving the article, and it still needs much improvement. And since I've been the main one improving it over the years, which includes me using the date style I'm most used to/comfortable with, I don't think MOS:DATERETAIN is against me on this. Not entirely anyway. I don't think that an article needs to unnecessarily retain a date or spelling style if the change is unlikely to be contested and the editor was not arbitrarily changing the style. If an article has been using mdy style for eight years, for example, there is no solid reason to change the date style back to a style that was used in 2004. Unless, of course, there are strong regional ties. So unless you have a solid reason why I must use dmy style, I will continue to use mdy style at this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

As seen here in 2010 and here in 2011, I did use dmy style, but I also used mdy style. And this 2011 edit shows me using mdy style. So my earlier edits were not concerned much with the date style. A consistent date style for me naturally evolved to what I am most comfortable using. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Addition of new section and text arrangement

I made two improvements in the article as per this edit or this diff which were reverted by Flyer22 Reborn. The first improvement was regarding the addition of missing knowledge regarding the prostate orgasm which was added as a new section and second improvement was done to separate the Anal and nipple stimulation into two separate sections considering them to be different topics. I hope the community will welcome the change and suggest any improvement that could be done to make it even better. My only pray to community members is to assume that the edits made by people in good faith and to avoid making such changes which reduce the knowledge instead of increasing it out of our own biased opinions and misconceptions. Longlastingpeace (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

You created an unnecessary "Prostate orgasm." Not only was the section WP:Undue, orgasm by prostate stimulation was/is already covered in the article. You simply moved material. Prostate simulation obviously goes with the anal stimulation material with regard to males. I didn't have much of an issue with the "Anal stimulation" and "Nipple stimulation" material being separate, as long as it didn't use the wording "in males and females" twice (just "Anal stimulation" and "Nipple stimulation" would have been fine), but you then went and created a "Prostate orgasm" section. The sources don't even call it a prostate orgasm, and one sentence takes the time to note: "However, though the experiences are different, male orgasms by penile stimulation are also centered in the prostate gland." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22 Reborn, I understand your POV. My intention behind creating a separate section for Prostate simulation was to remove the ambiguity between anal and prostate stimulation. There is general misconception in public that both of these are same and by making them separate, I was trying to clear that misconception. I want to give example of statement by author Jack Morin, that "anal orgasm" has nothing to do with the prostate orgasm, although the two are often confused.

Regarding your point that sources don't even call it prostate orgasm, you could refer to statement of author jack Morin which states the opposite. However, the scientific community term it Prostate-induced orgasms, so we could use that instead.

I agree to your point regarding renaming the section and I'll address that. I hope I addressed your reservations regarding the edits I made. Longlastingpeace (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. I do not see that there needs to be a Prostate stimulation section. There is no way to sexually stimulate the prostate without stimulating the anus, and many men who engage in anal sex with other men aim to stimulate the prostate during the act. I am aware of the Jack Morin piece; that is his view, and it's in that section already. There is no scientific evidence of an actual anal orgasm, despite Jack Morin making it seem like anal orgasms exist. With regard to men, the "anal orgasm" is attributed to prostate stimulation. The section takes the time to discuss the "anal orgasm" terminology, although I need to see about updating that with better sources. Regarding your source, it can be used for a little bit of material in an "Anal stimulation" section, but do note that it states, "Because there have been no published laboratory-conducted investigations of the orgasms induced by prostate stimulation alone, information about them has to be gathered from the various websites dedicated to such orgasms." It also focuses on a case study. It also concludes, in part, by stating "so much of the information that is available about prostate-induced orgasms comes from the anecdotal reports of individuals." Again, I would be okay with you splitting the anal and nipple stimulation material into their own sections (simply titled "Anal stimulation" and "Nipple stimulation" respectively), but, per what I stated above and per what your review source states, I don't agree to having a section specifically about prostate stimulation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22 Reborn, though I agree with your point regarding lack of scientific evidence of an actual anal orgasm but anal and prostate stimulation are separate is an established fact. Anal stimulation could be achieved by the presence of an object holding the sphincter open during orgasm or through some other technique to stretch anal sphincter muscles, which intensifies orgasm due to large number of nerve endings in the anal area. However, orgasm is not achieved through anal stimulation alone. Whereas prostate stimulation is achieved through stimulation of the prostate gland, by stimulating it through whichever means and it results in orgasm. Anal intercourse, however is mix of two and probably is what you are referring here. Perhaps, we should consider three separate sections viz., nipple stimulation under Females, prostate stimulation under Males and Anal intercourse for males and females to make the whole thing more clear. What are your thoughts? Longlastingpeace (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I know that anal and prostate stimulation are different, but I stand by my statement that there is no way to sexually stimulate the prostate without stimulating the anus. In what way do you think that the prostate is sexually stimulated in a way that the anus is not stimulated at the same time? Even when men go to the doctor for a digital rectal exam (DRE), the doctor inserts a gloved, lubricated finger into the anus and rectum in order to locate any bumps or rough areas on the prostate that could be cancer. The anus, rectum and prostate are all being stimulated during such an act, although that act is not sexual. And I'm obviously aware that orgasm is not achieved through anal stimulation alone; this is why I stated that there is no scientific evidence of an actual anal orgasm, and that the "anal orgasm" in men is attributed to prostate stimulation. So I am still against separating the prostate material from the anal material. We could title the section "Anal and prostate stimulation," however, to help address your distinguishing concerns. I disagree with moving these stimulation aspects to the main "Males" and "Females" sections. These stimulation aspects are not standard orgasms and therefore are mostly absent in the orgasm literature. So the "Males" and "Females" sections should not be stuffed with this material. Also, nipple stimulation, which somewhat concerns males as well, rarely results in orgasm, and an orgasm from the act is usually considered to be a genital orgasm that results from stimulation of the nipples. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, Longlastingpeace, since this article is on my watchlist, there is no need to WP:Ping to this talk page. I prefer not to be to articles I am watching.

I disagree with you on your point that there is no way to sexually stimulate the prostate without stimulating the anus. It could be done through perineum as well. Maybe in future, we might have toys that do that as well. So, the issue is here about the theory of techniques of achieving orgasm and not how they are intertwined. We could mention your point as well that in many cases of prostate massage, anal stimulation also happens. So, my suggestion is to have two separate sections viz., Anal Sex and Prostate massage in males to have better clarity about the subject. Longlastingpeace (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Eh? I am speaking from anatomical knowledge. You mention the perineum, but the perineum is related to the anus. Do read the Perineum article and/or its sources. Read the Pudendal nerve article and/or its sources as well. If you stimulate the perineum, you will be stimulating the anus as well. And sex toys already exist to stimulate the perineum. Considering that, for males, the prostate material goes along with the anal sex material (although, yes, men or their sexual partners may focus solely on sexually stimulating the perineum), and given the scarcity of research on orgasms via anal or prostate simulation, I do not agree to two separate sections. I've already made it clear what I agree to. You can wait for Rivertorch and/or others to weigh in, or go ahead and divide the material into "Nipple stimulation" and "Anal and prostate stimulation." Or I could do it for you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and divided the sections into "Anal and prostate stimulation" and "Nipple stimulation." Not sure which section should come first, but, going by the available data, it seems that orgasm from nipple stimulation is rarer; so I have that second. And, for the record, by "there is no way to sexually stimulate the prostate without stimulating the anus," I obviously was not referring to the natural stimulation of the prostate that happens during sexual activity when a man is not trying to stimulate his prostate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I still don't agree that there shouldn't be a separate section for prostate. Otherwise we won't have term with the name prostate massage and instead it should have been called Anal massage by the same logic that prostate can't be massaged without massaging the anus. So, my final stand is to divide anal and prostate massage into separate topics. We could take opinions of others regarding the matter. Thanks. Longlastingpeace (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I stand by what I've stated above. And your "massage" rationale is lost on me. All of the material concerns stimulation, but it does not all concern orgasm. The sources for anal stimulation/anal sex don't state "anal massage." And prostate massage firstly refers to a medical matter. The section doesn't need "massage" in its title. "Stimulation" fits for the whole section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I want to list our concerns so as to make sure that we're addressing them. You've two concerns IMO i.e. anal orgasm is never independent of prostate orgasm and prostate stimulation can't happen without anal stimulation and that is why they should remain together. Please correct me if I'm wrong or missed something. My first point is that anal and prostate stimulation are separate, to which we already agree. Anal stimulation could be achieved through some technique to stretch anal sphincter muscles while prostate stimulation is achieved through stimulation of the prostate gland, by stimulating it through whichever means like through fingers, toys etc. So, regarding your point that anal orgasm can't happen without prostate stimulation, we could mention it in Anal orgasm section and the community could have the discussion about it. Regarding your second point that it is not possible to stimulate prostate without anal, I believe that this is neither a sufficient reason and nor does it imply that these sections must be clubbed. So, in summary, I agree with your points but I don't believe that those points in any way imply that we shouldn't have a separate prostate section.

If my understanding about your views is correct and your stand is same then we should either invite other editor to weigh in or we should have a poll. If not then please correct me where I misunderstood your point. Longlastingpeace (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Longlastingpeace, if repeating will help, I'll go ahead and reiterate the following: I am against the prostate material being separated from the anal material; this is because when people are trying to sexually stimulate the prostate, it is either through anal sex or via the perineum. When prostate stimulation is brought up in solid sources, anal sex is often mentioned. When orgasm from anal sex is discussed with regard to men as receptive partners, it is about the prostate. Since there is no scientific evidence of an actual anal orgasm, it is not about the anus itself having created the orgasm. Well, except for whatever Jack Morin is going on about. Furthermore, the perineum is related to the anus. As for "anal orgasm can't happen without prostate stimulation," the section already notes that "The aforementioned orgasms are sometimes referred to as anal orgasms, but sexologists and sex educators generally believe that orgasms derived from anal penetration are the result of the anus's proximity to the clitoris or G-spot in women, and the prostate in men, rather than orgasms originating from the anus itself." This needs tweaking and better sourcing, which I will look into. I do not think that it's beneficial to have an Anal stimulation section talk about prostate orgasm, which it should if it's going to be a solid Anal stimulation section, and to then have a Prostate stimulation section separate from it. All of the material, terminology, distinguishing aspects and similar, should be discussed in one section. As for others weighing in, others watch this talk page, but they do not appear to be interested in weighing in on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

And there is also the fact that, per the source you cited above, scientific data on prostate-induced orgasm is also lacking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rivertorch, Doc James, RotogenRay, Jytdog, Rjwilmsi, TeaDrinker, Anetode, Nicolehyare. It seems that we are stuck in the deadlock here. Could you please give your valuable feedback and help us come out of this situation? Regards, Longlastingpeace (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I've read the lengthy discussion above and checked the recent history of the article to refresh my memory, but let me make sure. The main change you want to see is a separate prostate section, correct? If so, can you very succinctly explain why you think its being combined under "Anal and prostate stimulation", as it currently is, is less than optimal? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rivertorch, thanks for reading the discussion which would have been time consuming! My point is that anal stimulation and prostate stimulation are two separate acts, so that is the first reason that they should be separate. "Anal stimulation could be achieved by the presence of an object holding the sphincter open during orgasm or through some other technique to stretch anal sphincter muscles, which intensifies orgasm due to large number of nerve endings in the anal area whereas prostate stimulation is achieved through stimulation of the prostate gland, by stimulating it through whichever means and it results in orgasm." In addition to that, there is general misconception among public that both are same and having separate sections will help in better user understanding of the topics. Like as author Jack Morin stated, "anal orgasm has nothing to do with the prostate orgasm, although the two are often confused". I also believe that as long as these sections are kept together till then the confusion will remain and separate sections will certainly be helpful in reducing this confusion. Regards, Longlastingpeace (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

With all respect to Jack Morin, I think that one source probably shouldn't be determining the content or structure of the article unless it's something like a review article. This being Wikipedia, we're less concerned with cutting-edge research and theory than we are with the preponderance of expert opinion. It may be that there isn't much out there in the MEDRS-compliant literature to support the idea of orgasms arrived at through anal and prostate stimulation, respectively, being two discrete things. That doesn't mean the idea is without merit, or even that it isn't demonstrably true, but it does mean we need to be very careful about putting it in the article. It may be noteworthy—and we would need multiple reliable sources discussing it to indicate that—but that doesn't mean it should trigger separate sections; undue weight is a concern. I think maybe this seems more complicated than it really is. Like so many content disputes, it really comes down to reliable sourcing and due weight.

Having said all that, I'll also say that I'm still a little unclear what you're proposing. The sentence that you just quoted—whose words are those, yours? (They appear twice before in this thread but not in quotes.) Anal stimulation can occur in various ways other than what that sentence suggests. Most prostate stimulation also involves anal stimulation, although the reverse is less true. I wonder if it is even possible to completely isolate the respective neural impulses from prostate and anus. Bottom line: I'm not seeing a need to separate these out. I might be open to the idea of tweaking the wording in certain ways, but that would be a separate proposal. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

____

• let's get concrete: The content under discusssion is this, added here (and here and here):

It is possible for men to achieve orgasms through prostate stimulation alone. The prostate is located next to the rectum and is the larger, more developed male homologue (variation) to the Skene's glands (which are believed to be connected to the female G-spot). Prostate stimulation can produce a "deeper" orgasm, described by some men as more widespread and intense, longer-lasting, and allowing for greater feelings of ecstasy than orgasm elicited by penile stimulation only. However, though the experiences are different, male orgasms by penile stimulation are also centered in the prostate gland. Sex toys designed for prostate stimulation are, according to Wibowo and Wassersug, one of the means that help men achieve multiple orgasms. The practice of pegging (consisting of a woman penetrating a man's anus with a strap-on dildo) stimulates the prostate.

References

comments anon... Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we are speaking of a little bit of text, including the paragraph that includes Jack Morin. My issue is that there is no way to split this material in a way that won't result in unnecessary repetition and/or one of the sections missing something. This is because, like I stated before and as seen by the sources, "when prostate stimulation [in a sexual context] is brought up, anal sex is often mentioned. When orgasm from anal sex is discussed with regard to men as receptive partners, it is about the prostate. Since there is no scientific evidence of an actual anal orgasm, it is not about the anus itself having created the orgasm." My issue is also that there is little data out there on prostate-induced orgasms. I also don't know why Longlastingpeace keeps citing Jack Morin when there is no actual evidence of an "anal orgasm," and when we do have sources stating that orgasm from anal stimulation in men is the result of prostate stimulation. In my opinion, we should get rid of the Jack Morin sentence. And the "multiple orgasms" text is relatively recent and should be removed from that section as well since multiple orgasms in men is not well-supported in the literature. The "multiple orgasms in men" aspect is already mentioned in the "Subsequent and multiple orgasms" subsection of the Males section. If a reliable, WP:MEDRS-compliant source is available, we could note that anal stimulation is not the same thing as prostate stimulation, but I don't see that this is needed, and I don't see why the material needs to be split to get across anal stimulation not being the same thing as prostate stimulation. We combine related material in one section all the time to help avoid repetition, one section lacking material while the other covers it, and/or to avoid WP:Undue weight. I don't even like that we have a "Exercise-induced" section in the Females section, given the lack of scientific evidence on that, but at least it doesn't show up in the table of contents. The discussion for that section can be seen at Talk:Orgasm/Archive 3#Merge from Coregasm. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looking at sources

1. I cannot access Rosenthal so cannot comment
2. The "answer" ref discusses stimulation of three tissues, with different ennervation, as causing orgasm: anus via the Pudendal nerve nerve; rectum via Pelvic splanchnic nerves, and prostate via the hypogastric nerve. This is in a section on anal sex and does not separately discuss prostate stimulation outside of that.
3. Wibowo (PMID 27872023) no where discusses stimulation of the prostate without stimulating the anus or rectum (it spends a lot of time discussing men without prostates, actually. It also spends a lot of time discussing a specific device, a dildo that stimulates the prostate from the inside (so of course stimulating the anus and rectum) and outside at the same time.
4. New Scientist is not MEDRS and we shouldn't be using it. It hardly talks about prostate anyway.
5. Lewin/Leap - this is anthology of anthropology work on queer people/peoples. The citation is actually to a footnote. This ref fails MEDRS as well.

I don't see reason to split off prostate based on these refs and I do not see the first "thesis" sentence supported by any of the refs that i can access. If anybody has access to the Rosenthal ref please report what it says on this topic. thx Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Changed the section per your comments. Also made tweaks and removed the Jack Morin piece. In the past, the New Scientist source didn't bother me since we used to be more open to such sources for biomedical content. But, as you know, we became stricter on the matter and New Scientist is now mentioned in this section of WP:MEDRS. It's allowed...but cautiously. As for Rosenthal, last I remember, it supports material I used it for in this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This cite (mentioned above) seems highly relevant to this discussion:
Levin, R. J. (2017-12-20). "Prostate-induced orgasms: A concise review illustrated with a highly relevant case study". Clinical Anatomy. 31 (1): 81–85. doi:10.1002/ca.23006. ISSN 0897-3806. -- The Anome (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

And I commented on it above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Article is missing info on the possibility of prepubescent children of both sexes having orgasms.

Prepubescent children have been established to be able to have orgasms prior to the onset of puberty, in at least in some percentage of both boys and girls. In boys, the orgasms have generally been reported as being dry orgasms. If this info can be properly sourced, I think something on the these two facts should be added to the article. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Your comment is similar to stating that all of our sexual activity articles are missing information on prepubescent children. They aren't. This article is missing nothing by not having information on prepubescent children. Sources usually don't focus on prepubescent children when it comes to sexual activity. With regard to orgasm, sources don't focus on orgasm in prepubescent children unless it's about child sexual abuse or child sexuality. And part of the initial "Achieving orgasm" section in the article already states, "A person may experience multiple orgasms, or an involuntary orgasm, such as in the case of rape or other sexual assault. An involuntary orgasm from forced sexual contact often results in feelings of shame caused by internalization of victim-blaming attitudes." Of course, we could add a bit to that section about child sexual abuse, which often is not forced, but I see no need to add "orgasms in prepubescent children" material to this article unless it's a bit on child sexual abuse or child sexuality at the beginning of the "Achieving orgasm" section. WP:Due weight and relevancy apply to what you are suggesting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

the article is problematic, at best

The previous discussion calls attention to some VERY deep flaws running through the article.

By placing the two concepts so close, the passage cited seems to conflate "multiple orgasm" and "sexual assault." Perhaps it could be phrased better…? In any case, I'm uncertain how that passage relates in any way to "child sexuality." I do know there's at least one anthropology work about preadolescent masturbation around the world, though even there (as I recall) there was vagueness about whether orgasm per se occurred, largely due to wide variation in definitions of orgasm, as with the Freudian school's need to consider female orgasm as a lesser (immature?) form of male orgasm. The article makes the case for twenty-six definitions of "orgasm," after all, so it at least seems this would support the existence of "preadolescent orgasm," though I don't see where age really has any significant place in this article other than the onset and decline of orgasmic ability.

The claim seems to have been made that orgasm occurring during sexual assault or molestation leads to "internalization of victim-blaming attitudes" or some such. While there's repeated yadda-yadda here about the psychological factors in causing orgasm, there's really nothing about the psychological effects of orgasm.

FWIW, "involuntary orgasm" of women is known to occur occasionally during a pelvic examination (in part set off by the patient's nervousness at such physically intimate contact by a (relative) stranger). Given this, the section seems to put a valid, common, and occasionally life-saving medical procedure on par with sexual assault. Perhaps someone who knows WTF the section is trying to say could have a whack at clarifying.

Hmm; since we already have Orgasm#Involuntary orgasm, who will make the case that there's ANY reason for Forced orgasm to have a life of its own?

Though "multiple orgasm" is mentioned repeatedly (likely undue weight), it lacks straightforward definition at first use; the reference to Kahn is workable if rough-edged. However, it does seem to equate to "one orgasm following another, separated by a refractory period" which is problematic because "refractory period" is so frightfully vague, and apparently could be anything from a few seconds to a couple of months (!!). The longer the period, the more people are "multiple," which would seem to undercut the idea that multiple orgasm is particularly notable. I could make the case that all the "multiple" stuff be blanked until a single clear solid definition (at least for the purposes of the article) of "refractory period" is presented.

This is further clouded by phrases such as the resolution phase includes a superimposed refractory period and very short refractory periods during the resolution phase without saying WTF a "resolution phase" might be. (Incidentally, the term does not appear at all in Refractory period (sex).)

Shouldn't this article be titled something more like Human orgasm? or do "lower animals" not experience anything akin to orgasm?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Weeb Dingle, for just about every article you come across...you state that the article is problematic or is a bad article. Sometimes you have some valid points. Often, though, what you consider to be problematic is based on your personal opinion rather than a Wikipedia guideline or rule. An article might need sourcing or cleanup, as the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia do, but that doesn't automatically equate to "problematic." Anyway, as is clear from this edit where I noted that significantly fixing up the article is on my to-do list, I am well aware that the article is not a some great article. But even though I have more work to do on this article, it is at least thoroughly sourced and any WP:OR (rather WP:Synthesis) in it is minimal.

Before I made this edit (followup edits here and here), the beginning of the "Achieving orgasm" section had the following two sentences placed side by side: "A person may experience multiple orgasms. They may also experience an involuntary orgasm, such as in the case of rape or other sexual assault." Although it wasn't best to place the two sentences side by side, it wasn't conflating "multiple orgasm" and "sexual assault." That initial material is just general material. A summary. The "Involuntary orgasm" section is much lower in the article, and it states "an involuntary orgasm may occur as the result of sexual assault or rape, which may result in feelings of shame caused by internalization of victim-blaming attitudes," and so on. It states that because those are facts and should be covered in this article. You stated that there's "nothing about the psychological effects of orgasm." But that specific material concerns psychological effects. As for 'involuntary orgasm' of women is known to occur occasionally during a pelvic examination (in part set off by the patient's nervousness at such physically intimate contact by a (relative) stranger)," what WP:Reliable source do you have for that claim? And as for "Given this, the section seems to put a valid, common, and occasionally life-saving medical procedure on par with sexual assault.", it doesn't. Rape and other sexual assault are about non-consensual sexual activity. A pelvic exam is not a sexual activity, and it is obviously consensual unless forced. Anyhow, yes, we can add more on psychological effects of orgasm. And, yes, the section currently mentions "forced orgasm" because an editor recently added it, but the "forced orgasm" text and the Forced orgasm article clearly are not about sexual assault. They are about consensual BDSM activity.

Defining "multiple orgasm" never occurred to me because "multiple orgasm" seems self-explanatory. Plus, it's not usually defined in sources. Like this 2002 "Human Sexuality in a World of Diversity" source, from Allyn and Bacon, page 164, states, "It is difficult to offer a precise definition of multiple orgasm." But I went ahead and added a definition for it. The multiple orgasm material in the Males section was somewhat undue since it focused on that almost as equally as the other aspects of male orgasm and since the literature on multiple orgasms is mostly about women, although, as noted by this 2010 "Our Sexuality" source from Cengage Learning, page 176, it's also the case that only a small portion of women experience multiple orgasms even though women experience multiple orgasms significantly more than men do. Per WP:MEDRS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, the sourcing was also mostly poor. But I cut down on the material and added better sourcing.

As for the definition of "refractory period," it has a clear and sourced definition in the Refractory period article. I went ahead and used that definition with its sources (which I added to the Refractory period article years ago). The duration of the refractory period ranging among individuals doesn't mean that its definition is vague. The duration of an orgasm can vary as well, though not by much; that doesn't mean that the definition of "orgasm" is vague. And as for the "Definitions" section stating "At least twenty-six definitions of orgasm were listed in the journal Clinical Psychology Review.", those are not standard definitions of orgasm. Although nipple stimulation is mentioned in the article, for example, a "nipple orgasm" or a "breast orgasm" is not a standard definition of orgasm or a common orgasm. To stress "non-standard," a woman saying she had an orgasm from brushing her teeth was not studied enough for researchers to start significantly discussing "orgasm via brushing the teeth." We should generally keep WP:Fringe orgasms out of the article. The only reason that "exercise-induced orgasm" is included is because of the content that existed on Wikipedia about it and the topic seems like something we should at least mention (though a Wikipedia article for it is not needed).

Prepubescent children... I never stated or implied that preadolescent orgasm does not exist. What I stated in the section above is the following: "Sources usually don't focus on prepubescent children when it comes to sexual activity. With regard to orgasm, sources don't focus on orgasm in prepubescent children unless it's about child sexual abuse or child sexuality." That's a fact. With the latest (aforementioned) edit I made to the article, I included "Prepubescent boys have dry orgasms." If you have WP:Reliable sources (not some Freudian theory) on "orgasms in prepubescent children," then provide them here on the talk page. We can include a bit on orgasms in prepubescent children, but, per WP:Due weight, it will not be much.

No, this article should not be called "Human orgasm." There is barely any research on orgasms in other animals. That is why the "Other animals" section is so small. If there was enough material in that section to split the article, we might split it, but the human orgasm would still be the WP:Primary topic and should therefore still be under the title "Orgasm." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I look forward to your efforts to make this into a credible article.

In my foregoing comments, I failed to call attention to Wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline, which clearly says that an article topping 60K probably should be divided and one past 100K almost certainly should be divided. Orgasm having swollen to 132K (and showing no signs of reduced tumescence) is in clear need of reduction. I was seeking understanding as to how this article could be made into an informative "general audience" piece rather than a cruft magnet that doesn't even have at least the redeeming quality of being mobile friendly. Seems like a prime recipient for boldness.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

You haven't shown how it's not a credible article. And cruft? What cruft? You pointed to issues that needed attention, which I partly addressed. The other stuff was just you stating things. As I've noted to you times before, we follow what the literature states and with WP:Due weight. Not our personal opinions. There really isn't much for me to do when it comes to improving the current state of the article. I just need to trade out some sources for better sources, cut some material, add some material, and improve the lead. And just like that, the article will be of WP:Good article quality and it will be officially named such after I nominate it for that status and a reviewer and I work on it. You can disagree with that GA tag once it's there, and you no doubt will, but it will be there.

Size? Take note that WP:SIZE is mainly about prose size. It is not about references, etc. that add on to an article's size. "Probably should be divided" and "almost certainly should be divided" are not the same thing as "should be divided." The guidance states what it states because of the exceptions. WP:Spinout (a section of WP:SIZE), WP:No page and WP:No split have guidance on splitting. As for mobile friendly, maybe if you explain, people would understand what you mean. Furthermore, like the WP:HASTE subsection of WP:Spinout states, "As browsers have improved, there is no need for haste in splitting an article when it starts getting large. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Per article length, I don't really disagree about the ubiquity of superior technology. Webpages that used to crash/lock my old laptop seem to load just fine on my little pad. That point, though, does call to question why such an outmoded standard remains to be so readily found and then taken up as an example of "a Wikipedia rule" — as I did.

Anyway, to the case at hand. The fact remains that the article is 132K. That's a big grey wall of prose, no matter whether it includes references and footnotes and illustrations and charts and such. (I happen to have Methodism open, which weighs in at 158K, and Fender Stratocaster at a mere 20K despite being culturally iconic.) The WP:Spinout you just cited still clearly says that's not just "a little overweight." It's probably not to far off to guess that the referencing and such is ~50%, so call it 66K of article. Per Wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline, that's well into DEFCON 2.

Leaving aside tech improvements, that's a BIG chunk of prose (let alone fact) for a "typical user" to slog through, much less absorb in one sitting. I don't have my notes at hand, but I'm certain I read W'pedia guidelines about readability and usability that would bear on this. And the hugeness alone of Orgasm#References does suggest (to me at least) that the article is going too deep already, exceeding its remit to be a good encyclopedic article in pursuit of being a definitive publication, and will likely continue growth. IMO, it's that density that's the sticking point.

Therefore, my suggestion that maybe Orgasm could benefit from some sort of split. I raised it for discussion because I don't yet know how I'd even recommend that could happen. Your opinion (that a split would be far premature) is certainly valid, and I hope to see other views as well.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Oops, forgot: seeing as the article winds up with the (sourced) statement that

The duration of orgasm varies considerably among different mammal species.

that seems sufficient proof that the title of Orgasm might be changed to reduce the human-centricity. Again: topic for discussion/input.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources about orgasm are about humans, so the article should simply be titled "Orgasm". And I don't think this article is excessively long. A split is not needed. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Further to the SIZE issue: Weeb, Orgasm is not at 132k, for the purposes of assessing size for a WP:SIZESPLIT. The numbers given in the page history include wiki markup, and that is not the same as prose size. Current prose size is 59,013. See Wikipedia:Article size#Markup size and WP:RPS. Mathglot (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Brody

AFAIK Brody is an AIDS denialist. He assessed the probability of getting infected with HIV through PVI to that of being struck by lightning.

"But women are not asked about rectal intercourse, there is the same problem with dissimulation, blood donors are not a representative sam-ple of the population, and many people from the risk groups use blood donations as a way to get free HIV tests," Brody says. "So I expect the true HIV rate for Americans free of injected drugs and re-ceptive anal intercourse to be far less than one in 7,500." He expects that accurate evaluation would identify no more than one HIV-positive risk-free American per million.Combining those figures, Brody says that a risk-free American who has a single act of unprotected coitus with a random risk-free partner is about as likely to be-come HIV-positive as "be struck multiple times by lightning in one year, or win several state lotteries."

— Sex, Lies & HIV TransmissionNew Book by Medical Psychologist Stuart Brody Concludes That Rectal Intercourse and Unsterile Needles — Not Vaginal Intercourse — Are Real Heterosexual HIV Risk Factors, [3]

“I’m not saying that it is impossible for unprotected vaginal intercourse to transmit HIV from a positive to a healthy adult negative partner. Anything’s possible. It’s possible to be struck by lightning. But the two risks share an analogous probability, effectively zero. If healthy, HIV-negative Americans want to worry about unprotected vaginal intercourse, they should worry about the drive over to their encounters. If their partners have never injected drugs or received rectal intercourse or blood therapy, they are more likely to be killed in an automobile accident on the ride over than they are to become HIV-positive.”

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this, Brody is fringe. So is Reich. I've stated this before years ago. But we would need a solid source to call him (or Reich) fringe. Simply having Brody in the "Other theories" subsection of "Theoretical biological and evolutionary functions of female orgasm" works for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC) Updated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Peaceray: He is so fringe that he has a conspiracy theory for why the mainstream rejects Brody. As Petra Boynton stated, "The discussion and conclusions are more of a polemic against modern sexology than an exploration of the data found in the research." Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, “An empirical study carried out in 2008 provides evidence for Freud's implied link between inability to have a vaginal orgasm and psychosexual immaturity.” Are we considering this “fringe” as well? Perhaps the section needs to be split. Peaceray (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Peaceray: Psychoanalysis is notoriously unamenable to empirical research. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)m

[citation needed] So, should I trust your opinion or that what is published in a peer-reviewed journal? I think as someone who has degrees in Psychology & Library Studies, I will take my chances with the latter until I see some reliable sources otherwise. See also pseudoskepticism. Peaceray (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Science is organized skepticism, see Mertonian norms. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Correct. However, unorganized skepticism is not science. That is what you are presenting here.

Go find some reliable sources that contradict the aforementioned empirical study. I’m calling your bluff.

Peaceray (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Peaceray, I stated that "Simply having Brody in the 'Other theories' subsection of 'Theoretical biological and evolutionary functions of female orgasm' works for now." But, yes, "An empirical study carried out in 2008 provides evidence for Freud's implied link between inability to have a vaginal orgasm and psychosexual immaturity." is WP:Fringe. There is no need to find a source that specifically contradicts Brody's empirical study, when the literature already does that. The literature overwhelmingly does not support Freud's theory about female orgasm. The literature is overwhelmingly clear that Freud has been discredited on the assertion that clitoral orgasms are purely an adolescent phenomenon and that upon reaching puberty, the proper response of mature women is a change-over to vaginal orgasms, meaning orgasms without any clitoral stimulation. Not only did Freud provide no evidence for this assertion, it, as our Wikipedia article notes, made many women feel inadequate when they could not achieve orgasm via vaginal intercourse alone. Did you read what I stated years ago?. Freud's theory was discredited many years ago. Researchers know that the reason women usually do not experience a "vaginal orgasm" (which is also commonly attributed to the G-spot) is because the vagina (as a whole) has relatively few nerve endings compared to the rich, abundance of erotic nerve endings in the clitoris. Today's evidence indicates that the clitoris is the reason that women even experience "vaginal orgasms." Like this 2012 "Discovery Series: Human Sexuality" source, from Cengage Learning, page 103, states, "There has never been any scientific proof of [the G-spot's] existence, and today research indicates that increased sensitivity in the G-spot area may actually be caused by stimulation of the bulbs of the clitoris (Folds & Buisson, 2009; Pastor 2010)." In this 2012 The Journal of Sexual Medicine review examining years of research into the existence of the G-spot, scholars stated, in part, "Attempts to characterize vaginal innervation have shown some differences in nerve distribution across the vagina, although the findings have not proven to be universally reproducible. Furthermore, radiographic studies have been unable to demonstrate a unique entity, other than the clitoris, whose direct stimulation leads to vaginal orgasm." Researchers today don't believe that the reason that women typically don't experience "vaginal orgasm" is due to psychosexual immaturity. Women are generally just too immature to orgasm vaginally? No. That's not the case.

And either way, for a topic like this, per WP:MEDRS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, we should be sticking to secondary and tertiary sources, not primary sources/single studies. And, yes, WP:MEDRS applies to this topic, seeing as the topic of orgasm is a biomedical topic. Freud's theories have largely been discredited anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I just have pause here to observe that you essentially just wrote that "An empirical study"..."is WP:Fringe" & wonder that anyone would dismiss empiricism, the basis of the scientific method, for argument's sake.

However, let me get to my main response. If we are truly going to go for WP:MEDRS & stick only to secondary and tertiary sources, then why have a section supported only by primary sources? Rather than dance around whether primary empirical studies are fringe or not, let's just remove the entire Other theories section altogether.

Peaceray (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's clear that I was not saying "an empirical study is WP:Fringe." In this case, I'm not interested in the debate about empirical studies and other studies.

As for the section in question, the first goal, per WP:Preserve, should be to see what, if any, secondary and tertiary sources comment on those aspects and/or researchers. In that case, we should preserve appropriate content with due weight. Per WP:Fringe, fringe material is allowed within reason. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

Decoy, regarding all of this, what are you arguing and why aren't you sticking to what the literature states and with WP:Due weight? You made a WP:Bold and I reverted you. Do not WP:Edit war. Make your case for your changes here on the talk page. Also, be prepared to cite sources. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with your downsized version of the lead, since, per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize the article. As for this, the "variabilities" content is first because it addresses the most common way males achieve orgasm and different types of orgasms. No, I don't support your "A typical female orgasm" heading. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

"EISP" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect EISP. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Catgirllover4ever (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

is it possible to do a linking ?

in that page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_and_Johnson for Masters and JohnsonHuhiop (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I don't see how this is relevant, either. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 15:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

from Masters and Johnson to Masters and Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhiop (talk • contribs) 16:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

That article is already linked, in the first paragraph of Males, two stage model. Thanks IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding a ref to study

Can we add the ref to the study that talks about this: ‘One study examined 12 healthy women using a positron emission tomography (PET) scanner while they were being stimulated by their partners. ‘ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhiop (talk • contribs) 10:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Not if you don't tell us what it is. But in any case, this statement is sourced secondarily through the Times article, so that's what we're using as our source, not the study itself. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

can we use both ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhiop (talk • contribs) 18:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Penis Size

There is no mention of penis size being more capable of bringing women to orgasm. I believe there have been studies that show a penis with a large circumference as being able to bring women to orgasm easier and with more intensity, than an average penis. The thicker penis puts more pressure on the clitoris (both glands and inner structure), and that many women who need direct clitorial stimulation to orgasm, are getting with a thicker penis. Is it possible for anyone to add or am I wrong? RyanDanielst (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You would need a WP:MEDRS-compliant source. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That image

All right, opinions please. Does anyone beside TrynaMakeADollar believe that this thing [4] is a suitable page image for this article? I certainly don't. If there is no image available to illustrate a subject, our approach is generally not to turn to Boschian phantasies to fill the gap. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I did pick that image and I do think it's good because it does depict an orgasm, but I would NOT be opposed to someone possibly adding a different image. Either way, I do think that this article needs a lead image. There are plenty of other sex related articles that have very artistic lead images. The previous lead image for this article was also an art piece and was added after a good amount of a discussion but it was recently decided by an editor that there was no evidence that it represented an orgasm (I agree with that). There is nothing inherently wrong with using art as a lead image for an article like this one (previous editors have already decided this to be true). Art can illustrate how cultures may think about the subject matter. Also, art is not always anatomically correct. Here and here are different sizes for the image. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• This article does not need a lead image, and even if it did, that image would not be the one. It's WP:GRATUITOUS and in no way illustrates orgasm well. Orgasms generally don't involve disembodied winged genitalia. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Well I did indicate above that I am not steadfast on hanging on to that image, and would not be opposed to someone using a different one. But I don't think it's bad at all. Orgasms also generally don't involve naked women holding on to a horse (well I guess in some circles they do) and yet the Frenzy of Exultations painting was used as the lead image of this article for a long time. That image had been chosen after a relatively long discussion. From that discussion and the amount of time that the painting was the lead image, there was a spoken consensus and a silent consensus that a lead image for this article is needed. Only recently was the image removed because it was decided by an editor that it did not represent an orgasm. So, this article does in fact need a lead image. Once again, there is no reason that art cannot be used as a lead image for articles such as this one. It is not anatomically correct but it is quite hard to find images of an orgasm, or at least ones that would not be considered somehow offensive. I don't see how the image is gratuitous either. That's like saying the lead image of the Phallus article is gratuitous. It is not, it depicts the subject matter in an artistic way.

Also, you're telling me that you find my proposed image gratuitous but not the lead image of the ejaculation article? For the record, I think both images are fine. TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• No, it's unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 06:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Was the previous lead image a helpful image? As I explained above, that image was the lead for a long time and was chosen after a long discussion. Care to put forth a different lead image option? -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The previous lead image is gone now and not relevant anymore, and I don't want that back either. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand that it is gone, but I reject the idea that it is not relevant anymore. The long discussion in the talk page that lead to it being chosen as the lead image is certainly still relevant. It has already been decided previously that this article does in fact need a lead image and that a piece of art is ok to be used. Once again, images of art have been used plenty of times in sex related articles before. I put forward an image of an art piece that depicts an orgasm. Also, apart from the lead image this article is lacking in images overall. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Welp. Looks like this discussion has stagnated. The arguments against the image were very akin to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Does anyone else have something to say or add? I would encourage you to read the arguments above before posting your opinion. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Three editors say no, and one says yes. And the problem is that the three JUSTDONTLIKEIT? Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope. There is no problem here. 3 editors have said no. My argument is losing and will most likely lose in this discussion. However, in my opinion, yes the arguments do seem to be very much like JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Again, that doesn't really matter at this point though. If consensus is against me, then I'll accept it. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)