Determinants of female sexual orgasms

Abstract

BackgroundThe pursuit of sexual pleasure is a key motivating factor in sexual activity. Many things can stand in the way of sexual orgasms and enjoyment, particularly among women. These are essential issues of sexual well-being and gender equality.ObjectiveThis study presents long-term trends and determinants of female orgasms in Finland. The aim is to analyze the roles of factors such as the personal importance of orgasms, sexual desire, masturbation, clitoral and vaginal stimulation, sexual self-esteem, communication with partner, and partner’s sexual techniques.DesignIn Finland, five national sex surveys that are based on random samples from the central population register have been conducted. They are representative of the total population within the age range of 18–54 years in 1971 (N=2,152), 18–74 years in 1992 (N=2,250), 18–81 years in 1999 (N=1,496), 18–74 years in 2007 (N=2,590), and 18–79 years in 2015 (N=2,150). Another dataset of 2,049 women in the age group of 18–70 years was collected in 2015 via a national Internet panel.ResultsContrary to expectations, women did not have orgasms that are more frequent by increasing their experience and practice of masturbation, or by experimenting with different partners in their lifetime. The keys to their more frequent orgasms lay in mental and relationship factors. These factors and capacities included orgasm importance, sexual desire, sexual self-esteem, and openness of sexual communication with partners. Women valued their partner’s orgasm more than their own. In addition, positive determinants were the ability to concentrate, mutual sexual initiations, and partner’s good sexual techniques. A relationship that felt good and worked well emotionally, and where sex was approached openly and appreciatively, promoted orgasms.ConclusionThe findings indicate that women differ greatly from one another in terms of their tendency and capacity to experience orgasms. The improvements in gender equality and sexual education since the 1970s have not helped women to become more orgasmic. Neither has the major increase in masturbation habits (among women in general). One challenge for future studies is to understand why women value their partner’s orgasms more than their own.

Female orgasm and the emergence of prosocial empathy: An evo‐devo perspective

“…In a recent study of Finnish women, Kontula and Miettinen (2016) corroborated Lloyd's estimate with a finding that 6% of women reported that they usually have an orgasm via stimulating the vagina.…”

“…Without that, Lloyd estimates that “about 8 percent of women reliably have otherwise unassisted orgasms during penile‐vaginal intercourse, while nearly all men do” (Dingfelder, ). In a recent study of Finnish women, Kontula and Miettinen () corroborated Lloyd's estimate with a finding that 6% of women reported that they usually have an orgasm via stimulating the vagina.…”

“…"Recent rate" presents recent sexual encounter no matter what activities, data from Frederick et al (2017), Figure 1, and Garcia, et al (2014), Table 1. Kontula and Miettinen (2016) data from FINSEX survey. a Percent reporting orgasm in most recent encounter.…”

Introductory editorial to ‘Orgasm: Neurophysiological, Psychological, and Evolutionary Perspectives’

“…Kontula and Miettinen (2016) further examine questions of orgasmic responding in ‘Determinants of Female Orgasms’, using a large and representative Finnish dataset, covering a wide range of ages (18–81) and timepoints (1979–2015). Orgasm frequency was positively associated with mutual and open approaches to sex as well as positive relationship characteristics.…”

The clitoral activation paradox — Claimed outcomes from different methods of its stimulation

“…Despite the fact that highly relevant criticisms of the studies of Brody et al have now been published (Hurlbert and Whittaker, 1991;Laan and Rellini, 2011;Prause, 2011Prause, , 2012; Suchinsky and Lalumière, 2013; Levin, 2002Levin, , 2011aLevin, ,b, 2012Levin, , 2014Miko, Urban, Kajanov a, Pol ak and Varga, 2014;Prause et al, 2016;Therrien and Brotto, 2016;Tavares, Laan, and Nobre, 2017), few authors who quote Brody et al papers (Puts, Dawood and Welling, 2012;Aneja et al, 2015;Mazloomdoost and Pauls, 2015;Fleischman, 2016;Kontula and Miettinen, 2016;Maunder, Schoemaker, and Pruessner, 2017) also append in context these papers that highlight critically, not only their errors of omission and commission but also contradictory findings (see also Levin 2011bLevin , 2014 for further comments). This creates the illusion that their interpretations and conclusions appear to be unopposed and the possible 'canonization of false facts' (Banobi, Branch, and Hilborn, 2011;Nissen et al, 2016).…”