What would a extended orgasm response look like for males?

I find this chart to be interesting but also a little two dimensional. Why are clitoral lesser to vaginal? Why are blended better? Isn’t it a personal preference thing? What about nipple orgasms, tantric states and so on?

For men it would be really hard to classify orgasms in the same way because we have one type of orgasm that shuts everything off (ejaculatory), which have nothing to do with prostate orgasms. For those of us that have prostate orgasms, how can you classify them? Each person experiences them differently, and your status orgasm state might be from nipple diddling alone while mine involves me being fucked by a horse in a cow suit… I guess what I mean is it’s hard to say what is objectively better for the sake of an all encompassing graphic, but each individual knows when they get to nirvana in their own special way.

@divine_o 

I think I understand what they wanted to show, but I agree that it's not the best possible way to illustrate it. Things are not necessarily that linear. It's a compounding effect, but it might no happen in that particular sequence. 

I tried to map orgasmic states at some point, but I gave up. Every time I think I have an OK model, something happens that makes it obsolete. I don't truly know how things fit together. 

@divine_o Good point. The staircase model gives the impression of hierarchy, linearity, prevalence, and subjective powerfulness or profoundness, which can influence assumptions and misconceptions. It might also be missing different types or subtypes as classified by different individuals. Although this model can take a lesson from complexity, it does a good job including a variety of types of orgasms. This other model is much less linear but does not contain an orgasm types. Perhaps individualized web, network, or circular models would be the way to go.

@zentai I agree that the ESR model implies for them to happen in an order in a session or as one learn about their body. For instance, a recent survey study had more participants report full body orgasms and non-genital orgasms than G-spot orgasms (only 1%).

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19317611.2023.2182861?src=&journalCode=wijs20  

What kind of models did you try before? 

The most comprehensive review of orgasm models is in Levin's article in The Textbook of Clinical Sexual Medicine (p. 39-51), which reviews models from the early 1900s to present. One model even used catastrophe theory. Even the most advanced models shown in my post above has it shortcomings and does not mention types of orgasms.

Right now I'm working on a mind-map where I'm trying to see the relationship between what I think are the drivers for the Super-O states, but it's far from complete and I'll have to redo everything at some point. 

I tried line graphs for arousal, bits of Ven diagrams, a friend of mine even drew shapes on a sphere as we were trying to figure out how different states were interconnected. But in reality, there's no up or down, above and below when you try to classify experiences. I'm pretty sure at this point that "rough seas" are not more powerful "calm seas", they're different things. 

We may be moving from one stable experience (or plateau) to another, and as someone said, the map is not the territory. I don't know if the best map could help with finding shortcuts, I don't think it would. 

That Levin model is very mechanistic, so I don't think it can really flow like the orgasmic experience flows, even if it is impressively complete (and that's without any explanation for each step, the whole thing must be scary complex !) 

I often think about how the ancient Tantra practitioners were able to figure things out in more holistic ways, and I try to stay closer to this when I can. But a good model could end up looking like an M.C. Escher lithograph anyway...   

@zentai "Mechanistic" is a good way to put Levin's model. Perhaps some kind of meta-model would be good to combine many modes of expression of one's experience. It's interesting you mentioned your model maybe being like a M.C. Escher lithographer. Perhaps artistic representations of an orgasm experience (e.g. poetry, painting, photography) in conjunction to the psychological, endocrinological, neurological (e.g., Umit Sayin's or Levin's model), philosophical (Tantric Diagram of Panchmukhi Hanuman), and eco-systemic models (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1994). The best person to make the model of their experience tends to be orgasm-haver themselves, although some may have trouble conveying their experiences or identifying/using modes of expression. It would be cool for researchers to provide more means for participants to express their experiences. Since there are so many variables, it would be hard to scale to include the experiences of many people (as ESR model does), unless it only covers one dimension like biomarkers.

I believe that even fairly early in Super-O states, models would lose their ability to inform us on what is happening.

Even if we could have access to all the biological markers and MRI imagery in real time, at some point this would only serve as a comparison with other known states, which I  suspect would mean psychedelic drug usage in some cases, or deep meditative states in other cases. While we may know what is happening to the subject, it's very hard to map what the subject is actually experiencing. And I strongly agree that putting these experiences in words or images or even shapes is quite challenging. 

From a practical standpoint, we would need a first model explaining how things interact to create Super-O states. Meaning people could use it as a framework for their practice. Even if you know, for example, that you are lacking arousal, and that arousal can be ramped up by A, B and C, can you manifest these elements or create these conditions, that's the big question. 

It's like the "triangle of fire", if you carry this diagram in the woods with you, it does not guarantee you will be able to build a fire, even if you understand exactly what the triangle means. There's a skill component, and sometimes a luck component, etc. 

Nevertheless, I think that first model can be made. I don't know what it would look like, but there is definitely a finite amount of elements needed to create a Super-Orgasmic state, so it's realistic to think we can discover them all. I'm pretty sure that the simplest model is also a triangle : Arousal, Relaxation, Focus. 

But if you need to focus on involuntary contractions, then these need to happen first. If you need to relax into the experience, then some other conditions must be met. Then things get complicated. 

A previous model of mine was simply a tall tree with many branches, which you would "climb" and encounter branching paths, and to get to the top, you would need to climb down sometimes, or go sideways, i.e., choosing the right path. But this was more of a visualization than a true model. 

I strongly feel any serious researcher needs to experience Super-O states himself before he can even start thinking about going further in mapping out what happens once in Super-O states, which would be our second model. And I don't think it would have much of a connection with the first one. Maybe a bit like two cones connected by the tip, things closing in as you approach the Super-O "point", then expanding again once you thread the needle. 

I think any model trying to class what everyone of a certain gender feels is going to be flawed from the get go. I guess I don’t see the point, other than to show the possible extremes (no orgasm on one side, and on the other, status orgasm or extended super O or whatever you want to call it) and know that everything in between is possible.  Classifying and forcing orgasms into hierarchies is the antonym of unbridled pleasure.  I agree with @zentai that anyone who undertakes such classification would need to be adept at extended pleasure themselves, and then I could only hope they would see the futility of this Sisyphean task.

@divine_o 

Posted by: @divine_o

↑

 I agree with @zentai that anyone who undertakes such classification would need to be adept at extended pleasure themselves, and then I could only hope they would see the futility of this Sisyphean task.

Hehe, "One must imagine Sysyphus happy" (!) 

But there's also something to be said about the myth of the perfect database that will answer all our questions. I think it was Niels Bohrs who said that after you get deep enough into the science of things, then you're back at mystery and wonderment. Of course he probably said it better, and maybe it wasn't even him... Nevertheless, this seems to be true, each time I think I have things figured out, something happens and pokes holes in my understanding. For me it's part of the fun, but it can also be frustrating. I still feel like figuring it out completely would be pretty cool, even if it's not realistic. 

I would assume there would be no set model considering not a ton of studies have been done on prostate orgasms.  I remember someone making a thread previously about putting money into a research project.  I'm not sure that ever got off the ground.  I also started a thread at one point, wondering what exactly is going on in the body that causes these pleasure responses.  From responses and my own Google searches, most information directs you back to this forum.

I guess you can try to journal and track your own progress alongside a sampling of people on the forum, but I'm not so sure how beneficial it would be.  Since every orgasm (Mini to Super) is so different based on each session, I don't know how you would classify on a chart where everything sits.

I've heard of users having what they called both "mild" and "explosive" Super Os.  Then we start getting into the debate on what is the difference between a Mini O and a "mild" Super O.  I think Rumel said something at one point, where he believed a lot of guys were having Super Os, and missing out on them because the pleasure VS their expectation was unbalanced.

@zentai 

good stuff: I’m gonna cite someone, though this isn’t exactly what they said and they might not be the one who said it. I had a chuckle…

yeah do it if it makes you happy, by all means! I just think it will end up looking like pseudo-science. But the graphics presented above, especially the complex one, are pretty.

Posted by: @divine_o

↑

good stuff: I’m gonna cite someone, though this isn’t exactly what they said and they might not be the one who said it. I had a chuckle…

Bwahaha, fair enough ! This was pretty lazy writing on my part...  Bohrs actually said : "When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images." Which I understand to mean that at some point, you need to escape the strictly mechanistic or technical  understanding, otherwise you will never "get it". Since I can't have a chat with Niels right now, I'll pretend this is what he meant... 

Anyway, of course this can (probably) only lead to pseudo-science, maybe the Os start right were the explanations stop ? If this can lead more rational-minded people right to the transition point, then I guess this is worth a shot.  

Edit : And Eisenberg said : " The problems of language here are really serious. We wish to speak in some way about the structure of the atoms. But we cannot speak about atoms in ordinary language." 

@nat I remember seeing the post about putting money into research for prostate orgasms. It also mentioned Levin's prostate study and had a cost breakdown.

The only desire I found for an fMRI study with prostate stimulation is one of Barry Komisaruk. It's not for prostate orgasm though. He wants to see whether the prostate has a response in people with a certain degree of spinal cord injury, which will support his line of research: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/episode-56-barry-komisaruk-phd/id1410002881?i=1000544488595

Dr. Erik Wibowo would possibly do a study in the future if he received funds, but he recognizes the need for a deeper exploratory studies first and is concerned about head movement, so he'd need Komisaruk's custom head molds.

You're right that orgasm is so difficult to classify and put into typologies. Anything would be progress over research or models, like Masters and Johnson model, that assume males can only have ejaculatory orgasms. Levin has a good paper on this: 10.1080/14681990410001641663

I think Rumel's posts hit the nail on the head with that. It's like any definition or typology needs a disclaimer that "this definition is based on experiences of X and that your experiences might vary or be entire different."

It's interesting that this community considers intensity of a given orgasm type to be a type in itself. Some researchers do not consider intensity or profoundness in there classifications, like in this study: 10.1080/19317611.2023.2182861

Posted by: @cummingrainbows

↑

It's interesting that this community considers intensity of a given orgasm type to be a type in itself.

I think it is 50/50 - for product sales and for user discussion.

I don't think we would be talking much of anything about "rewiring" to prostate orgasms, Mini Os, Super Os, and all these other terms, if not for the existence of Aneros.  I think the innovations that each device has brought along has come with a specific form of conversation on what prostate pleasure could be.  Then again...  Maybe someone who has had Super O - like responses before Aneros was created can correct me.  This of course would also have to be someone who has had Super O - like responses with Aneros (for some form of comparison.. if possible).

The Aneros site mentions nothing in product descriptions about all these terms or "claims", but you have to believe most people interested in the product will have come to the forum and read all the crazy stories.  I'm sure it drives sales in the same way as it drives tons of threads here.

Labels do sometimes have positive purposes.

@divine_o Great point that "trying to class what everyone of a certain gender feels is going to be flawed from the get go."
Great point also that "classifying and forcing orgasms into hierarchies [like Sayin does] is the antonym of unbridled pleasure."

I hope more researchers see the task as "Sisyphean" and complex, as some still believe that it's as simple as, "once ejaculation is understood, is all of male orgasmic experience is also understood."

I guess the question is then: Why make models of orgasm?

I can see how models like Masters and Johnson's model and conceptual frameworks shape the way that researchers think about orgasm, what they consider in their studies' questions, analyses, and limitations, and the assumptions they make about orgasm. For instance, many researchers do not consider many different experiences reported by males, like prostate orgasms. However, there are many studies that ask of popular typologies for females (blended orgasm, status orgasmus, ect.), since they have been represented as having many more experiences than the male's singular experience: https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/the-hook-up/a-beginners-guide-to-orgasms/10339422

Posted by: @cummingrainbows

↑

Dr. Erik Wibowo would possibly do a study in the future if he received funds, but he recognizes the need for a deeper exploratory studies first and is concerned about head movement, so he'd need Komisaruk's custom head molds.

I was fairly critical of the first fMRI proposal for studying Super-Os, and I would have similar criticism for this one, too. I wonder if most people who can do it at will could perform under lab conditions. I personally don't think I could achieve Super-Os with my head in a fixture, for example. And when I read studies, I wonder what portion of the experience can actually be translated to a paper. Even if I, or someone else, had a super intense experience that challenged previous findings, would this prove anything, or just end up as outlier data ? 

It's hard for me to believe that research on this topic takes so much time. After all, sex sells, and I don't think the fact that men can experience multiple non-ejaculatory orgasms is up for debate at this point. This is a wide open field of study in a time period where people are more and more sex positive. 

@nat The marketing/sales and user sentiment dimensions were things that I didn't really explore much in terms of how it might have influenced the language used for each orgasm type.

I also did not look into etymology of the terms and history of anal/prostate pleasure/orgasm. Before Aneros, the term "super orgasm" was used to describe any really powerful orgasm experienced by usually a female. I wonder what a review of texts related to anal sex or prostate massage would yield.

Posted by: @cummingrainbows

↑

I guess the question is then: Why make models of orgasm?

I can understand the concept.  Not only are we curious to find out why/how we do what we do, but creating models is a way for us to track our own progress.  The problem is, rewiring is such a jagged line, you might hit the highest peak one night, then get thrown down to the very bottom... for weeks!  This is why I would be more interested in what exactly causes our bodies to have specific reactions, rather than knowing each level of orgasm.

Posted by: @cummingrainbows

↑

I also did not look into etymology of the terms and history of anal/prostate pleasure/orgasm.

I guess I can only speak for my own experiences.  I knew about the prostate and anal play, but didn't know a lot about the specifics.  Finding Aneros was like a magical mindfield for me.  The concept of not only having these mind blowing orgasms, but having them hands free with your body doing most of the work... seemed like a scam of a product.  It wasn't until being active on the forum for a month or two, reading stories, looking at answers to newbie questions, that I decided to take the plunge. 

I just assume most people don't see a device, hear the term "Super O", and jump right into the product.  There is a bit of a learning curve on how it actually works.  Then again...  I don't think we had the complete wiki we have today back in 2008.  I can see how getting lost in the terms can actually hinder progress - example.. maybe models of male orgasms (lol).

@zentai A very relevant quotation. Replacing "atoms" with "orgasms," it makes sense for orgasm too.

To quote Feynman: "If you think you understand [orgasm], you don't understand [orgasm]."

An conceptualization, understanding, or framework of orgasm does have a risk of becoming pseudoscience, especially when overstated or taken too far.

Perhaps there is already a lot of pseudo-science or just bad science driving the popularly stated typologies of orgasm.

Considering this, as Roy Levin asks, "Who ought to decide that an orgasm has occurred?" The subject? The physiologist? The psychologist? The brain imager? The neurologist? The endocrinologist?

Each have their pros and cons. A similar questions is, "Who ought to determine orgasm types and subtypes?"

Of them, the subject is most prone to pseudoscience but is still the best at determining whether an orgasm was felt, where it was felt, and what type of orgasm. The collective interpretation of them all together would be needed for a more complete understanding of a particular experience of the participant. Some individuals opt to use a tantric/spiritual lens, either in place of scientific understanding or along with scientific understanding.

Other pseudo-science may come from flawed studies or problematic approaches to categorize orgasms by brain imagers, physiologists, endrocrinologists, or psychologists of the past.

Posted by: @zentai

↑

Bohrs actually said : "When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images."

Posted by: @cummingrainbows

↑

Replacing "atoms" with "orgasms," it makes sense for orgasm too.

Beautiful.

Posted by: @zentai

↑

It's like the "triangle of fire", if you carry this diagram in the woods with you, it does not guarantee you will be able to build a fire, even if you understand exactly what the triangle means. There's a skill component, and sometimes a luck component, etc.

Agreed.  And lol, “One must imagine Sysiphus  happy”.

Posted by: @cummingrainbows

↑

I guess the question is then: Why make models of orgasm?

I think a positive of even a simplistic, flawed diagram, is it can make me aware there is a “something” called a blended orgasm… prostate and penile- that I can aim for, even if I haven’t been there before.  Same for status orgasmus. 

Thanks, all, for the interesting and scholarly discussion.  To be continued, I hope.  From where, @CummingRainbows , have you gotten all of these cool references, right out of the starting gate?

Posted by: @helical

↑

Thanks all, for the interesting and scholarly discussion.  To be continued, I hope.  From where, @CummingRainbows , have you gotten all of these cool references, right out of the starting gate?

I'm very curious, too. These are new to me, and I've been "in the game" for a bit. There are so many things I would like to know about the Super-O states : What's the purpose of this biological process ? What would trigger this for, say, Bronze Age guys ? Or for earlier humans ?

I'm not someone with a great amount of energy. I always wondered what drove super passionate people, do they get some kind of mental reward similar to a Super-O ? 

If more people could achieve Super-Os, maybe we could together and answer these questions ? I really look forward the rest of this discussion. 

@helical I agree that visual aids can help people become aware of something.

Something simple like a list or even a circular marketing-style diagram can be useful, as it does not get too caught up in the details and can be a good visual. Many lists have been made of orgasm types but there's not really any visuals with all these types on them.

I know about the research, because I have been avidly reading orgasm research for the last decade to better understand my own experience. I have also contacted and asked questions to researchers. They gave me resources and also let me know of some of the problems with researching orgasm. There is still much I do not know and have not considered that people are mentioning here.

I have been avidly reading orgasm research for the last decade to better understand my own experience

@CummingRainbows Do tell, what has been your experience, here or in another thread?  It must’ve made quite an impression upon you- not that I blame you.

By the way, nice quote at a link one off an earlier one of yours- 

The mental-orgasm (…)
If a number were to be applied to it, it would appear the female orgasm is 99 percent mental.

For men too, if we’re talking non-penis orgasms!  If not ninety-nine, then emphasis has still been properly placed in the importance of the mental aspect.

@zentai hmmmm. Never thought about that. Like, how did this ability even start in early humans?

To my knowledge, evolutionary sexologists have not considered different type of male orgasms like penile NEOS, prostate orgasms, non-genital orgasms, or anal orgasms in their hypotheses.

I can see some of the hypotheses for the purpose of super orgasm from prostate or anal simulation having evolutionary purposes that parallel proposed purposes of female orgasm, like pair bonding, reproductive fitness, incentive to have sex, a way to destress and maintain health.

Alternately, like the male nipple, it could just be a happy accident or a gift as an embryological homolog/something leftover (e.g., vagina masculina) from some type of response/orgasm that females have for pleasure, reproduction, or giving birth.

@helical My beliefs about orgasms have changed over the years, especially as I read more and experienced more things.

Early on, I thought that males could just have ejaculatory orgasms, so I would try to have as many as possible in a day, which I still do sometimes, forcing out upwards to 20 of them with my Sybian and all kinds of industrial toys. Then I learned about NEOS, prostate orgasms, BDSM practices, anal orgasms and more and became so excited and curious about what I might be able to experience. I now have a $8000 toy collection that helped me in the pursuit.

I'll have to write out some detailed testimonials. I provided some details in some of my other posts. I just keep finding more and more ways to experience pleasure and sometimes I read research that leads to another idea to experiment with my body and see what happens.

Mentality is definitely important for many people, like this study describes: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5087699/

Some individuals, particularly those who orgasm easier, can orgasm during masturbation when they feel sick or are not in the mood. Sometimes orgasms are unwanted as in persistent arousal cases or in SA cases, but they happen because the body is responding to physical stimuli. In other cases, people can orgasm solely from their mind.

@cummingrainbows

Have you come across anything in the literature that suggests a link between the mechanism of grand mal seizures and full-body orgasm? My pet theory is that there may be some overlap, based on symptoms.

Rather than an fMRI study, it would be less expensive to conduct a simple scalp EEG to verify whether the Super O is a localized phenomenon, or whether it spreads to other regions of the brain. Based on user testimonials, it seems apparent that the Super O does in fact spread (e.g. activity in visual cortex). If it is anything like a grand mal seizure, then it would be characterized by synchronous firing of large populations of neurons, which would be picked up (presumably) by a standard EEG. Obviously the spatial resolution would be significantly lower, but the temporal resolution of an EEG would allow for real-time verification of the various stages of the Super O. In my opinion, this would be a much more simple experimental design, with the added bonus that the subject's head doesn't need to be held stationary.

I would guess that an eventual model for the Super O wouldn't look too dissimilar from that of a grand mal seizure. There are obvious differences, but there are also some (seemingly) obvious parallels.

Most likely, there is no causal link between grand mal seizure onset and onset of a Super O; the latter would likely start in the same region of the brain consistently, while the former doesn't always have a well-defined locus. Grand mal seizures are a serious, potentially life-threatening medical condition; Super O's are a form of pleasure. Grand mal seizures cause loss of consciousness; Super O's usually do not. However, the possibility that Aneros users have discovered a seemingly reliable, repeatable, and relatively safe way to experience what may be considered a "benign" generalized seizure based on physical symptoms alone, should not be discounted out of hand, especially if it could lead to better understanding of the mechanism of seizures. If I were to design an exploratory experiment or write a grant proposal, I might approach things from that angle.

@firewire Another thing is that the obtunded postictal period of a GM doesn’t really resemble the period after one of these SuperOs

@cummingrainbows What is a Sybian? $8000 must be quite a collection.

@cummingrainbows You could have a good point. I think the people who enjoy sex the most and have intense orgasms in general are able to immerse themselves in the moment and not spectate themselves (which I think I do to some extent.)