A critical examination of the relationship between vaginal orgasm consistency and measures of psychological and sexual functioning and sexual concordance in women with sexual dysfunction

Abstract

A substantial body of research supports the hypothesis that vaginal orgasm is associated with overall better health outcomes for women. The primary aim of this study was to examine correlates of orgasm consistency with intercourse (OCI) in a sample of women with sexual dysfunction to see whether these findings held in a clinical sample. Study 1 (n=255) focused on demographic and psychological correlates of OCI and Study 2 (n=81) focused on the association between sexual arousal concordance and OCI. A longer relationship length and higher orgasm scores predicted OCI whereas mood, sexual abuse history, and relationship satisfaction did not. In Study 2, sexual arousal concordance, as measured with vaginal photoplethysmography and a continuous self-report measure of sexual arousal, was not associated with OCI. These findings challenge the conclusions of Brody et al. that vaginal orgasm is a sign of psychological, sexual, and relational health.

The Clitoris—An Appraisal of its Reproductive Function During the Fertile Years: Why Was It, and Still Is, Overlooked in Accounts of Female Sexual Arousal

“…It has never been revealed why this clitoral stimulation does not cause the “noxious outcomes” that clitoral stimulation (digitally or vibrationally) is claimed to create even when occurring during coitus. In this context, neither Prause et al, () nor Therrien and Brotto () found negative mental health in women who used clitoral stimulation.…”

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).…”