The lifelong orgasm gap: exploring age's impact on orgasm rates
Posted by bushwart 1 day ago
Comments
Comment by nonethewiser 1 day ago
The article says:
>Men’s orgasm rates ranged from 70% to 85%, while women’s ranged from 46% to 58%.
The article does recognize there are "physiological" factors but omits it from their conclusion:
>This study revealed enduring disparities in orgasm rates from sexual intercourse, likely resulting from many factors, including sociocultural norms and inadequate sex education.
The gap remaining across ages would be consistent with physiological factors dominating.
I think it would be interesting to figure out what this natural baseline was. If you could take out all social factors and see the percentages. I imagine it would be far more skewed.
Comment by snovymgodym 1 day ago
Comment by schiffern 1 day ago
>The gap remaining across ages would be consistent with physiological factors [being non-zero].
If a gap remains, that indeed would be consistent with the hypothesis.Whether or not the gap that actually remains is consistent (let alone causal) cannot be determined from these limited data.
Subtle difference in wording, big difference in meaning. The former is correct, but many readers will "upgrade" it to the latter, stronger claim.
Comment by airbreather 1 day ago
Comment by fuzzfactor 1 day ago
Comment by lava_pidgeon 1 day ago
In time of limited public attention education and health issues must be addressed than the organism gap.
Comment by dang 1 day ago
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
Comment by armchairhacker 1 day ago
Society is very large, so we can tackle big and small issues. And I’m sure it’s more effective to let people choose smaller issues, than force them to work on big issues they don’t care about and are probably redundant.
Comment by Daishiman 1 day ago
It's amazing that an activist group that actually shows far more awareness of the systemic issues that affect all genders is being held to an impossibly high standard when no "masculinist" group or whatever non-existant equivalent is out there doesn't even care in the first place.
Comment by the_real_cher 1 day ago
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2026/09/04/jobs-report-women-payrol...
Comment by maxhq 1 day ago
» Because women tend to earn less than men, Ullrich said winning a higher share of jobs could mean companies are focusing hiring on lower-wage roles. Given that women are more likely to have multiple jobs, Ullrich said some of the gains could stem from workers who are stretching themselves thin.
“You could look at it and say, ‘Yay, women,’” Ullrich said. But, “I don’t think it’s necessarily a positive story for women overall.” «