What would a extended orgasm response look like for males?

@nat There’s no doubt that WOM (word of mouth) and videos on porn sites must be generating awesome sales for Aneros. My cynical mind suspects that some of those vids are either embellished or fake.

@kjoqsupplicant It's a straddle-type $1200 vibrating machine. If you Google it, it should come up.

@firewire I think I'd say the same. There's not much out there in the literature. In the videos I've seen of people flailing around and reporting a prostate or anal Super O, movement is mostly in the hips and not the head and arms like a grand mal. There's some literature on people who have epilepsy having seizures from orgasm. This paper also covers some other cases that look like seizures. The only I know for masturbation are paroxysmal non-epileptic events, and I think this is most closely related to Super O: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1684/epd.2020.1234

I'm trying to think of something similar in females in presentation. I'd say some presentations of people with PGAD in XXX, like Ani Huger, are somewhat similar. I do not know whether there's any similarities in the brain though. Some presentations might be exaggeration for voyeuristic reasons, while others could be related to the actual Super O typology. I imagine some people have them but do not flail around.

@kjoqsupplicant

Yeah, you're right. Not a 1-for-1 correspondence, just similar. Perhaps it's personal bias that makes me see similarities where they don't exist.

@cummingrainbows

Hmm, hadn't thought about that. A psychological trigger does make sense though, since arousal is a key factor.

Possibly related to the discussion, here's a recent paper that derives an oscillator model for the male sexual response (i.e. the Masters & Johnson model). Unless you like nonlinear dynamics, the most relevant part is the last two paragraphs of the discussion section, quoted below:

Spoiler

While this paper has been concerned with the dynamics of aggregated levels of physiological and psychological arousal, another very interesting potential avenue of research concerns a more detailed representation of neural dynamics associated with a sexual response. An orgasm has been called “an altered state of consciousness,”¹¹⁸ and several neurological studies have shown that neurons in some parts of the brain exhibit the level of synchrony during an orgasm, which is very similar to that observed during epileptic seizures.^119–121 The significance of this observation is that one can gain insights into emergence and control of neural synchrony during a sexual response and an orgasm by using mathematical techniques developed for analysis of various phenomena in systems of coupled neurons, such as amplitude/oscillation death,¹²² chaotic synchronization,¹²³ and chimera states.¹²⁴ In this context, it has been suggested that periodic physiological stimulation, which we modeled as a constant term due to its high-frequency nature when considered on the timescale of a sexual response cycle, can actually result in the entrainment of oscillations among groups of neurons,¹¹⁹ thus suggesting the possibility of another feedback mechanism between physiological and psychological components of the arousal.

 

One could also revisit the relation between arousal and performance as used in the equation for physiological arousal and reconsider it from the perspective of reversal theory.^125,126 In this framework, depending on the tone of activity, when in the playful state, the increase in psychological arousal moves one from boredom to excitement, whereas in the serious state, a similar increase in psychological arousal moves between relaxation and anxiety. This allows a more nuanced representation of interactions between the level of psychological arousal and physiological pleasure, as is associated with a sexual response, not to mention that it can provide a wider range of scenarios for switching between playful and serious states, and the corresponding changes in arousal. When combined with the above-mentioned data on neural correlates of a sexual response and an orgasm, this could yield a much more accurate representation of a human sexual response. Finally, with insights obtained from the results in this paper, the next major step would be to consider how one could modify modeling framework to study the sexual response in females, which is known to be much more complex from the perspective of interactions between physiological and psychological arousal, as well as in terms of a much wider range of different temporal dynamics that it can exhibit.^7,8 More specifically, one could incorporate in the model additional feedback mechanisms proposed by Basson⁸ in her circular model of a female sexual response, which pointed to desire and excitation arising as a by-product of stimulation in addition to spontaneous desire associated with stochastic inputs, and the role of sexual motivation as a factor influencing the degree of receptiveness to stimulation.

TLDR: the proposed model solution(s) closely track with M-J model of male sexual response, but it doesn't explore the case where arousal and stimulation are *also* dynamic. They also don't explicitly model orgasm and ejaculation as separate events.

There are some other limitations that don't track with the Super-O (e.g. resolution phase), but it's interesting to see that work is being done on the topic from a simulation perspective. Simulation may be the closest we get to a technical understanding of the Super-O, since I doubt there will be much interest in conducting experiments. Just a lot of societal norms and skepticism that would make it very difficult.

However, if more simulation work is done on exploring the female orgasm, it will likely lead into edge cases like status orgasmus. That could be useful for understanding the Super-O and the "O-zone" phenomena. There's been a lot of work done on simulation studies for epileptic seizures as well, which also incorporate oscillator models. If any meaningful scientific progress is to be made on the "male extended orgasm response," it may be as a by-product of studying epilepsy and the female sexual response.

Golly, the human brain is fascinating!

Posted by: @zentai

↑

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 ? 

@Zentai The simple answer is that evolution is lazy. The main reason why males have this hidden ability is because it wasn't created for us, but there is no evolutionary pressure to remove it.

One of many organs that is shared between the sexes is the prostate, females have a prostate too. The name is different, they call it the G-spot, but the function is the same. It's the same organ that differentiate into male and female version during development.

There is a very clear reproductive advantage if a female experience a orgasm during sex, due to stimulation of their prostate. There is no evolutionary pressure to remove thoose features from males who share the same organ, since the organ is hidden deep within the body.

@brailleskin 

That's similar to my own theory, although I never went to great lengths to see if it fits with established science. I think it makes sense for males to orgasm just once to trigger ejaculation, and then it's not very useful to have more orgasms. So we got a refractory period, but it's not such a airtight design, because it's tied to ejaculation and not orgasm... So while it's not trivial to bypass it, it's also far from impossible. I wonder how early this was discovered and what people made of it. 

@firewire Thank you! This one is brand spanking new. I just read it in full, although my knowledge of all the mathematics is not good. I watched some YouTube videos to get an overview of some of the parts of the equations.

If anyone here has a mathematics background, can you explain the model more and perhaps suggest what could have been done differently in their formulas? What other branches of mathematics or modelling could they have looked at?

I agree with you. It's an improvement over the prior mathematical studies of orgasms, considering they used the Masters and Johnsons model, which is notoriously problematic. It has many limitations like you said and isn’t very practical for orgasm researchers who probably aren’t mathematicians on the side.

They selected what seems to be the most straight forward of all sexual responses: the male ejaculatory orgasm. I think there is still much for them to model.

The authors do note that orgasm and ejaculation are different processes but do not mention male multiple orgasms and multiple types of orgasm for males, despite even blogs mentioning them now. They only mention female multiple orgasms. They fall right into the reductionism of the Masters and Johnson’s heuristic model, which researchers like Kenneth Mah discuss. Masters and Johnson did have male participants who had multiple orgasms but they were not represented in the model, unfortunately.  Also, some of the authors mentioned, notably Whipple, had a study with a male who had 6 ejaculatory orgasms in like 30 minutes, so I'm not sure if they are aware or if they just excluded the information for some reason. Even Kinsey, which they referenced in the beginning, had an infamous table (Table 34), section, and literature review that mentions non-ejaculatory multiple orgasms in males.

I think each orgasm typology might need its own model.

If this is a template for the ejaculatory orgasm, would the NEO penile orgasm fit within this model? How did they model the separation of ejaculation and orgasm?

Maybe there will be interest in the future to study male extended sexual response, since more people are realizing the male sexual experience for some individuals is just as complex with multiple typologies as the female sexual experience is for some individuals. 

@cummingrainbows

Sorry for the late response. Hmm, I'm not really the right person to ask; it's been a while since I used that knowledge for anything practical, and a lot of what they wrote is beyond my level.

However, by way of analogy: think about how air or water currents can, under certain conditions, create tornadoes and whirlpools. Temperature, barometric pressure, and a host of other variables can interact to form what's essentially a stable state, characterized by some type of periodic, oscillatory activity. Then, if conditions change again, the whirlpool will dissipate. What these authors did essentially was describe the Masters & Johnson model with a system of differential equations, whose behavior can be described by a number of states (i.e. arousal, orgasm, resolution). Oscillators are a very flexible method for mathematical modeling; you can get extreme shifts in outcome just by adjusting the initial state of the system and some of the involved constants. The system evolves over time without any intervention (i.e. stimulation stays constant), and at the tipping point (orgasm) both physiological and psychological arousal drop off precipitously, even if stimulation continues. If you fiddled with the model parameters enough, you could likely end up with a simulation that replicates *status orgasmus*, which is probably the closest medical term we have to the Super-O. In that case, both forms of arousal would continue to increase, or at least stay at an adequately elevated level for orgasms to continue to occur.

Ejaculation seems to be more like an *event* than a dynamical system; you reach a certain level of arousal and you're going to ejaculate. In this paper, they only explicitly model arousal; ejaculation/orgasm are just descriptions for the point where arousal drops and the refractory period starts, I think.

Edit: Here's recent another paper to add to the list: Atlas of the receptive anal sex experience among people with prostates

Unfortunately it's still paywalled, even though it had some public funding. Booo.

@firewire

Thank you so much for sending me this very significant study on receptive anal intercourse and explaining the math study some! 

I couldn't resist buying "Atlas of the Receptive Anal Sex Experience among People with Prostates" and having my Speechify Snoop Dogg voice read it to me haha. This is probably one of the most inclusive sexological studies I’ve ever read.

The authors “hypothesize[d] that the prostate is the main erogenous zone during RAI” (p. 127). However, they found that "[c]ontrary to some lay literature, the prostate region is not the subjective pleasure center for all individuals" (p.126). In addition, the study “examining subjective experiences and locations of erotic sensations of RAI suggested that prostatic stimulation is not the sole or even primary source of pleasure during RAI for many study participants” (p. 132). This includes with a penis and with toys.

What does this mean for the prostate orgasm typology? 

If more research (especially neurological, endocrinological, brain imaging, and psychological studies) find that the prostate does not contribute significantly to pleasure, it's possible that prostate orgasm is actually a result of the nerves around the prostate in the anus or nerves of the inner penis rather than the prostate itself, which means that a “prostate orgasm” might a misnomer for a deeper anal orgasm. In a way, this parallels the g-spot/internal clitoris controversy in females. This also aligns with other research in females that found that orgasm tends to be felt solely or partially in the area where it is stimulated. The nerves of the inner penis and nerves of the anus, especially those in the front of the anus, were the main sources of pleasure, from it being relaxed, stretched, and rimmed. This does not support the author’s hypothesis that the “male G-spot” is the ultimate pleasure region inside the anus. Some participants enjoyed stimulation far beyond the prostate. If this is the case, prostate massage may be mostly for health purposes, rather than for pleasure, although some may enjoy the sensation of prostate pleasure that may or may not turn out to be an orgasm.

One participant also did not notice any pressure difference since having the prostate removed: "After prostatectomy one participant suggested that the erogenous sensation after surgery was not altered, possibly because he experienced a majority of pleasurable sensation from the anus" (p. 135).

The authors note that “[w]hile many debates exist regarding the existence and relationship of the “g-spot for men (most often associated with the prostate), there is no conclusive empirical evidence to suggest that the prostate is indeed responsible for these heightened sensations. However, the area where the anterior rectum met the prostate or just cranial to that was recognized” (p. 129-130).

Here's the highlights relevant to the Aneros community, which if further supported, might have implications for the Aneros community like increased focus on the anus and inner penis for pleasure rather than the prostate itself. Curvature also might not be as significant for pleasure in the design. Nevertheless, pressure on the prostate and having anything in the rectum like the Aneros may increase the strength of an ejaculatory orgasm or anal orgasm and also help in milking the prostate for health purposes.

• "Participants described anterior rectal wall stimulation as a tingly or electric sensation; others described the sensation as massage-like or localized pressure. Factors that brought out this sensation include the size and shape of the penetrating object (e.g.,penis, toy), sexual position, partner experience, and repeated, rhythmic stimulation. Stimulation in this area could also provoke urinary urgency, which had variable interpretations from pleasure, discomfort, to in difference. Anterior rectal wall stimulation can also provoke neurologic sensations, including numbness, tingling, and/or muscle contractions in various locations around the body, which is interpreted as enjoyable or overwhelming" (p. 130-131).

• “External erogenous sensations were described as a stretching/relaxing of the anal sphincters or a localized tingling, which could be provoked via light touch or analingus. Additional erogenous sensation was felt in the rectum (fullness, warmth, friction and pelvic floor musculature (contraction/relaxation/loosening). Participants also often suggested that erogenous sensation was desirable and common in non-prostate areas within the anorectal region" (p. 131).

• “Sensations described by participants may have anatomical explanations, which are displayed in Figures 2 and 3. Afferent innervation to the prostate gland derives from sensory nerve fibers of the L5-L6 segments and a smaller degree of innervation from T12-L2. Prostate-induced orgasms have been reported anecdotally (i.e., with similar concerns regarding actual vs. perceived prostate location as seen in our participants) and are thought to be secondary to these afferent nerves passing along the outer surface of the prostate gland. Erogenous sensation in this area may also be secondary to deep penile tissue stimulation mediated by these same pelvic nerves. Stimulation in this area was described as tingly, electric, massage-like, or a localized pressure. Interestingly, not all participants experienced these sensations. Interoceptive awareness influences the ability to relate subjective and physiologic sexual arousal. Perhaps heightened awareness of these sensations results from those who practice prostate stimulation. Conversely, it is possible that some participants learn to focus on other erogenous zones such as the anus and do not develop an “appetite” for anterior rectal wall stimulation" (p. 135-136). 

• “Sensory innervation to the anus derives from the pudendal nerve. The shared sensory nerve supply of the perianal region (inferior hemorrhoidal nerve) and the genitalia (dorsal nerve of the penis and posterior scrotal nerve) help to explain why pleasant sensations in one location may produce a reaction or sensation in the other, as some of our participants described. Some participants specifically enjoyed RAI from sensations in more external areas such as the anus and anal sphincters, while others highlighted “rectal fullness” as an important driver of pleasure. Afferent nerves that detect rectal distention are separate from the pudendal nerve distribution. The rectum is innervated by 2 distinct spinal pathways, including the lumbar splanchnic and sacral pelvic nerves.” (p. 135-136).

What implications are there for Aneros users if their findings are further replicated?

• Something I and some others on the Aneros forum suspected from our experience: “Prostate-induced orgasms” might actually be deeper anal orgasms from the nerves concentrated in the anus and not the prostate combined with the feelings of prostate stimulation tingling, contractions in other regions of the body, and feeling of urinary urgency.
• The prostate itself can orgasm, but it’s not very common. Anal orgasms are far more prevalent motivators for RAI.

This also goes back to the very definition of orgasm and how to define it, which isn't really possible in a single sentence. Are the tingly, electric sensation, feelings of warmth, wave-like sensations, numbness, and muscle contractions in various locations in the body associated with prostate stimulation an orgasm or something else?

___________________________

Also, for the math study, I contacted the authors and they said they conflated both orgasm and ejaculation, as done in most literature. They said they would be interested to see how there model holds up to any new information that comes out about different types of male orgasms, especially male multiple orgasms and non-ejaculatory orgasms. There model currently does not represent male multiple orgasms, so that will require a change in the rapid decrease of arousal. 

Status orgasmus tends to refer to multiple orgasms that continue on and off every 10 or so seconds for several minutes, whereas super orgasms tends to refer to an orgasm much more intense than one's median orgasm intensity of a certain typology. I imagine the model's parameters can be adjusted to fit male multiple orgasms where the orgasm threshold is reached but not the ejaculatory threshold/PONR and subsequent refractory period.

@cummingrainbows

Glad it was helpful. These findings seem consistent with the hypothesis that it's stimulation of the prostatic plexus, which innervates the penis and other structures, that leads to these orgasms. That was my understanding at least, rather than it being stimulation of afferent nerves in the prostate itself.

Regarding the modeling paper, can confirm anecdotally that you can adjust the parameters to produce multiple non-refractory orgasms, as well as a sustained state of heightened arousal without dropoff, consistent with a Super-O. So it's certainly possible for this model to capture the ESR for males; the trick will be identifying what the biological correlates are for the model parameters, if there are any. Also what ranges for those parameters are biologically feasible? I'm still playing around with the equations in a very unscientific manner, may have some figures to show later.

A tangent: has anyone here been able to *hear* nerve activity or noise coming from the prostatic plexus? Cause I'm pretty sure I can; it starts as singular zaps and becomes so rapid (during orgasm) that it's almost like static, yet I can still differentiate the individual zaps. Wild.

@firewire I reread the study a couple times and had the chance to get a better understanding of the math concepts. I see what you're saying about adjusting the parameters to produce multiple non-refractory orgasms and perhaps even reflect different typologies. I do not see why any other typology would not involve some psychological + stimulation like the ejaculatory orgasm represented in the model.

A major improvement of this model is the notion of the quasi-threshold of orgasm. I like the term "quasi-threshold," because this is not some fixed-value threshold but rather an entire range of values of physiological arousal (known clinically as “the points of no return” or “point of ejaculatory inevitability”), beyond which an orgasm will happen. This threshold may be different for different people, or even for the same person in a different situation.

Also, considering the influence of small random influences on physiological and psychological arousal, it transpires that actually the “optimal” threshold (characterized as the one with least effort and in the smallest time) is actually quite low, which is good in that it gives hope for people, for whom it may not be so easy to achieve high levels of arousal due to, say, physical disability.

For your question, I'm not sure. This is the first time I'm encountering the notion of hearing something during orgasm with prostate plexus stimulation. I couldn't find any information on it either. That could be a good topic to start a thread about.

Thanks @firewire and @cummingrainbows for the discussion and for highlighting complexity, which is often denied with a reductionist mindset out of convenience or ignorance.  It coincides and affirms my own experience; just because it’s not simple to put into words, does not mean it doesn’t exist-

Posted by: @cummingrainbows

↑

the prostate region is not the subjective pleasure center for all individuals

-to which I’ll add, “all of the time”.  This may also refer to the rete (veil) of nerves exterior to the prostate, which @rumel has mentioned in the past.  I have felt alternate dry orgasmic loci and contractions for instance, at the posterior rectal wall and the first and/or second anal sphincters.

Posted by: @cummingrainbows

↑

Stimulation in this area could also provoke urinary urgency, which had variable interpretations from pleasure, discomfort, to in difference.

Certainly this was true at my first Aneros awakening, and continues to be true to date. It culminates in pleasure.

Posted by: @cummingrainbows

↑

Curvature also might not be as significant for pleasure in the design.

Peridise!  Tempo!  I had doubt about my purchases that they would do so much for me as a “straight stick” design but that was happily dispelled.

I learned a new word too- “interoceptive” awareness.  This awareness thus described is key for the journeyman, however acquired.

We all benefit since @cummingrainbows laid hands on the paper @firewire mentioned.

We are “fearfully and wonderfully made” both female and male.  Let such information discussed in the preceding entries not allow you to forget this for one moment.

I pulled some quotes from another thread, as I felt this was a better place to have this discussion. I hope that you guys don't feel they are taken out of context. 

Posted by: @cummingrainbows

↑

For instance, since there is no statistic for males, Umit Sayin estimates that nearly 10% to 15% of the female population can develop some capacity for extended sexual response [...]

Posted by: @cummingrainbows

↑

He also estimates that less than 1% of the female population can enter status orgasmus. I imagine this is even less common for males.

I really wonder about this. My first obvious question is whether any of these researchers can achieve Super-Orgasms themselves and know what it feels like, or if any of them tried to train themselves for this. Do they really understand this ? If I make a training protocol for Super-Os and only 10-15% of trainees improve, and only 1% achieve their goal, then I will question my protocol. I won't say most people can't improve...

I'm not saying that neurologists should have Parkinson's disease and oncologists should have cancer. But I would expect someone lecturing me on magic mushrooms to have strong first-hand experience, and the same goes for any mind-altering state. If some guy says he's an expert on alcohol and never got drunk even once, I would have some serious doubts.

To me these numbers are really, really low. 1% would point towards a rare genetic condition or some elite levels of... something. Or different brain connections, like we'd see with autism. But functionally, if a guy is able to have an orgasm, and if he can train himself to avoid ejaculation and/or refractory period, then he can have another one, and so on, building up to Super-Os. This does not seem like something that should be out of reach or requires some superpower.

I'm not ready to accept I can only achieve Super-Os because I won some random genetic lottery, that would be very depressing at this point... 

I'm glad you mentioned this.

I think it's definitely useful for researchers to experience different types of orgasms and participate in communities such as Aneros. It helps them consider more things when designing and conducting the study and writing their papers. It also improves empathy, enhances rapport, provides an insider perspective, increases trust, and assesses to information. Cons of having the researcher with a shared experience of participants include potential bias in the researcher from projecting elements of their experience onto the experiences of the participants, increased subjectivity into the research process, and risk of less objectivity.

I'm not aware of any male orgasm researchers who have discussed their own experiences of multiple orgasms, only some female ones like Patricia Taylor, Nan Wise, and Nicole Prause. Sex researchers often need to tread very carefully as many of their research efforts can be squashed in university and stakeholder politics. This paper goes more into detail about who sex researchers are, stigmas of sex research, and what motivates them to do sex research: https://www.academia.edu/27911250/Sex_and_Sexuality_Volumes_1_3_Edited_by?email_work_card=thumbnail

I'm not sure how Umit Sayin came to those numbers. I imagine that it doesn't reflect possibility and potentiality. Instead, it reflects the actual number of people who will report such an experience at any given time based on his research experience as well as experience of colleagues, like Patricia Taylor, who teach people some ways to expand their orgasmic response. This statistic is lowered by stigma towards sex, religious shame, sexual trauma, bad health, mental health, medications, lack of knowledge of orgasm types, ways to explore, and access to toys, etc.. It might also be higher or lower is some samples and regions too.

So I think the numbers are mostly influenced by social factors rather than the genetic lottery. The 1% might have more social factors going for them such as a high sex drive, knowledge about their body, comfortableness with themselves and their partner(s), more attainable psycho-stimulatory orgasm quasi-threshold, willingness to work through sensitivity following the first orgasms, less sex-related shame, and a sex-positive outlook and an absence or little influence of the many things associated with "dysfunction."

I had a discussion with someone at one point who asked me if I was naturally multiorgasmic. I was not sure and am still not sure of the answer. I think people might have more or less of a proclivity to be multiorgasmic at different times and for different physical and psychological reasons. I think that some segment of the male and female population with a willingness to experiment might learn to have multiple orgasms and multiple types of orgasms. Kinsey quite infamously thought that males have the same orgasm response as females before spermarche, perhaps with even more proclivity towards many and multiple orgasms due to ease of stimulation and the general rapidity of response. Kinsey also thought that males lose all multiorgasmic ability associated with short refractory periods at age 40 although he did not give any refractory period times (e.g. 10 minutes for "pseudo-multiorgasmic" to couple minutes being "highly ejaculatory multiorgasmic"). However, people well into their elderly years are reporting multiple orgasms and many types of orgasms.

If Kinsey was correct, just as females, we might be naturally inclined to multiple orgasms until the ejaculatory reflex develops. Social reasons and health, then, influence who has a proclivity for multiple orgasms and who does not. After the ejaculatory reflex develops, one needs to discover what works for their body to separate orgasm from ejaculation. This is then something that is learned through "biohacking" the process, which is not natural. So if Kinsey as well as his references were correct, I think males or at least a good segment start with a proclivity towards multiple orgasms, but then it shifts to something that needs to be learned after ejaculation-arche.

As for a protocol for learning, I'm not sure. Although there are many proposed protocols, they are still at the working hypothesis stage. I have an ongoing list of like 30 mentioned techniques, and so far, there's many hypotheses for why they may work. Right now, vitalistic beliefs, as in many other points in scientific history, attempt to fill gaps in many explanations for why one technique might work. In the future, the most effective protocols would involve an understanding of the mechanisms behind each type of orgasm and an understanding of why a technique can create conditions for that type of orgasm. As for now, many things are stuck in the hypothesis stage, although sometimes some individuals (including me in the past) have viewed them as supported theories.

I think that first-hand experience is more important than any risk of introducing bias, because in this case, lack of experience also comes with bias. I experienced many different flavors of orgasms, different paths to reach them, and more importantly, I discovered that things are always shifting. Some approach can work one time, then the next time, a seemingly opposite approach will deliver results.

I had to conclude that everything works for someone, and nothing works for everyone, and thus, there are probably several models that can coexist. As long as researchers do not agree that there are different categories of Super-Os, then they will probably be stuck trying to design a single model, while in fact it's more like 6 or 8 models that share some common elements. The only way to "see" this, in my opinion, is to experience it for yourself, because some things are either very hard to put into words, or would be hard to believe. 

From a politics point of view, I don't think I will ever understand how it's okay to design more powerful intercontinental missiles or some random satellite death-ray, but one has to be careful when doing research on human sexuality, because there is stigma attached to it... It's the old joke about being able to show 25 people getting killed in an action movie, but don't you show titties, because that is bad. We have a long way to go. 

I think that the biggest barriers to achieving MMOs are mostly psychological, after you meet some minimal mental and physical health levels. If this is 90% mental, then most everyone should be able to do it, the issue being, how do you teach people to twist their mind like a pretzel and fold space... (*)

I'm convinced that we are physically inclined towards multiple Os, the only issue being that stupid refractory period, because we are definitely mentally inclined towards multiples. Who would not want a second orgasm after the first, and a third one, and so on ? Practically speaking, if men did not have refractory periods, I feel that at least some of us would have sex or masturbate to exhaustion all the time, or until something started to hurt. Evolutionary speaking, this would not be very productive. 

While this is obviously biohacking, like @brailleskin said, evolution is lazy, and the refractory period being triggered by ejaculation is not a very airtight mechanism. It feels like a last-minute design change and it's not that complex to hack, of course, simple does not equal easy, but it should be comforting to know that at least as far as things go physically, the main goal is simply bypassing the refractory period. 

(*) Edit : About folding space and mind twisting, it's not going to be that hard, but for the first times, it can absolutely feel that way. And I think that some guys who managed a Super-O one or two times and then were unable to replicate it will know what I'm talking about here. This task can be so counter intuitive that it feels like it does not follow any logic. 

@cummingrainbows

The authors in the mathematical modeling paper make the following claims:

1. Orgasm is a function of primarily physiological (variable u) and psychological (variable v) arousal
2. Change in u over time is proportional to the current level of u and physiological stimulation (E_u), and inversely proportional to the current level of v
3. Change in v over time is proportional to the current level of u and psychological stimulation (E_v), and inversely proportional to the current level of v
4. When a certain threshold of u is reached, an orgasm is triggered
5. Behavior of #2 changes post-orgasm, to account for the sudden dropoff (i.e. refractory period) in u and v.

After reviewing the paper further, I agree with your assessment that a separate model is needed for non-ejaculatory vs. ejaculatory orgasms. I also have a problem with the model only having a single steady state: non-arousal/refractory period, what they call homeostasis. This was an assumption on their part (equation 10-11) that doesn't jive with MMO or continuous orgasms, as it implies that once the physiological threshold for orgasm is reached, arousal will drop precipitously.

The psychological dampening effect is especially problematic, as it implies that a NEO isn't possible at high levels of both physiological and psychological arousal. An ESR model would account for a purely psychological threshold for orgasm, versus a purely physiological one, as well as a combination of the two. While it's mathematically convenient to assume physiological arousal exclusively triggers orgasm, it isn't true to reality.

It is possible for this model to reflex MMOs or even continuous orgasm by adjusting parameters a and b in the model. However, this means dismissing the key assumptions of (10-11), namely that the inequality in (11) does not hold, thus there isn't a unique steady state in the model.

See the following figures:

Experiments for https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0143190

In Figure A, I used the default parameters of the model with a=0.5, b=0.1. This results in typical physiological response of an EO, where u drops post-orgasm and eventually oscillates around a steady focus at u_A=1.5. This corresponds to the blue region in FIG. 4.b from the paper, a stable focus. The corresponding phase portrait is provided in Figure B. You can clearly see the stable focus at u_A where the streamlines circle around a certain point and cannot "escape" from it, like a whirlpool.

Figure C with a=0.4, b=0.1 corresponds to an unstable focus in FIG 4.b from the paper (red region). You'll notice how MMO is possible in this state, with periodic orgasms every 100 timesteps or so. Figure D is the corresponding phase portrait; the streamlines circle around the focus but can now "escape" back into orgasm before going back again.

Figure E-F show the scenario where a=0.25, corresponding to an unstable node in FIG 4.b (yellow region). Here u sort of "ping-pongs" between orgasm and non-arousal, almost like a sawtooth wave.

Figure G-H shows when a=0.05, which is a stable node. It corresponds to the smaller black region in FIG 4.b in the paper. In Figure G you see that u grows exponentially at first then logarithmically at a certain point. It never drops below orgasm threshold, though, and will continue indefinitely. Psychological arousal v has likewise has negative logarithmic growth. The stable node is off-screen, but occurs at about (6.89, -3.45) in phase space. So u will grow asymptotically towards this point, and v will fall asymptotically towards this point as well.

The scenario depicted in Figure G-H is what interests me the most. First, it violates the inequality assumption in equation (11) from the paper, something none of the other configurations do. Also, the idea of arousal growing infinitely is an attractive analogue for what we think happens during a Super-O. However, I was under the impression that arousal during a Super-O would grow exponentially as opposed to logarithmically like this model shows. The latter would, however, be consistent with the idea that the levels of pleasure and arousal during a Super-O are limited by our mind somehow, meaning that we perceive them as growing continuously but only up to a certain (theoretical) point. So infinite growth, but not towards infinity. Pretty sure our puny human brains cannot actually comprehend infinity anyway, just bits and pieces of it.

@zentai

If you don't mind, I can offer a little perspective on scientific bias. Suppose a male researcher has experienced a prostate orgasm or Super-O, and then conducts a study on people who have self-reported such events. Depending on the design of the study, it may or may not be possible for the researcher to be wholly objective in their analysis, especially if it involves monitoring test subjects while they're having POs. Unconscious bias creeps in all the time; a well-planned study will try to minimize such "confounding variables" before conducting any actual experiments. In this scenario, the researcher would ideally not be physically involved in any observations, and if they do any type of data analysis, they will not be aware of which data were recorded during orgasms. If brain imaging is involved, it'd be wise to do "resting state" recordings where the subject just lays there and does nothing. Depending on the modality, researchers also do "empty room" recordings to account for any inconsistencies in the equipment; these can be subtracted from the resting state data to obtain baseline brain activity. And if you're really paranoid, you can also task the subjects with faking an orgasm as convincingly as they can (i.e. a placebo). This could include physical displays as well as mental gymnastics. During analysis, the researcher should be "blind" to which recordings contain actual orgasms, and which contain the fake ones. If you have a hypothesis that POs, and in particular the Super-O, cause widespread neural synchrony in the brain, this would be an easy way to test that theory. Your null hypothesis is that there's no difference between baseline and PO recordings, and you use statistics to (more or less) prove that this isn't the case.

And if you're super-duper paranoid, also recruit female subjects that are multi-orgasmic and record them as well, or alternatively find a study that already did and use their data. Basically, anticipate and counter any potential skepticism from peers, cause oh boy, there's going to be lots of skepticism.

The hallmark of good science is that it's repeatable. Anybody should be able to look at the data and obtain the same or similar results, regardless of whether they've experienced a PO. It's perfectly fine for personal experience to motivate a researcher to conduct a study, but they have to leave any personal bias at the door. Of course, unethical scientists abuse this system all the time, but if it's something you really care about you'll want to do it right the first time, regardless of the outcome.

Sorry if I'm declaiming, just wanted to emphasize what @cummingrainbows already stated in a scientific context.

@firewire 

I don't mind, of course ! 

My opinion is that someone can't be a "complete" Super-O scientist or expert if he has no personal experience in the matter, because experience is necessary to be able to fully interpret the results. A big part of the experience won't show up on a graph or on readings. It's one thing to just jot down : "The subject reported a strong feeling of being one with the Universe and all living beings", but these are just words unless you've been there yourself. It's also easy to report that episodes of anhedonia following such an experience are caused by serotonin depletion, for example, while the experienced practitioner could understand this in another way : the sense of loss from achieving "perfection" for an instant, only to be back in "imperfection". Being able to see both angles would be invaluable. This, to me, is the exciting part : how do you go from breathing and flexing to states of bliss. It seems science is lagging behind people's experiences.

Maybe I lack imagination, but I often fail to see what exactly we are looking for in these experiments. Are we still debating the validity of male NEOs experiences ? I don't understand why anyone would self-report as being multi-orgasmic while they're not. After all, everyone here is self-reporting. This could be an elaborate hoax or some fantasy forum where everyone roleplays at having prostate orgasms. Then what ?  

I understand the need to calibrate everything and avoid introducing errors or background noise in the process. Beyond that, male fakers would be obvious, they would tap out once the refractory period kicked in. Of course this simple test would not hold up during peer review, I understand this, too. Now whether you can "trick" brain imagery equipment to the point where an analyst would see an orgasm where there is none... I think this would be like faking REM sleep or faking using MDMA. If you can get close enough, then you're already orgasming anyway, or at least, that would be my theory. 

If a team of scientist wanted to make headlines, they would work on methods to trigger S-Os or NEOs. Either you're in S-O states, or you're not. There seems to be a transition zone where the potential for Super-O appears, but past that point, it's pretty binary. Just like a plane : either it takes flight, or it doesn't. After that, you can worry about performance, efficiency, duration, etc. 

Once you get this part, then you'd have all the subjects you'd want to research things further. Skepticism would also fly right out the window once peers would be self-reporting Super-Orgasm, too ! Seeing is believing.

I'm not saying science is wrong here, but I have the impression that the distrust in the human element of the equation is misguided. I did print out the mathematical model paper, and I'm slowly going through it. While it's fascinating in some way, and as much as I enjoy your analysis of it, I can only wonder :  can this model be used as a tool to induce orgasms, and if so, how ? 

@firewire Thank you for making these graphs! I'm currently working with your post and creating a document with graphs to propose an alternative mathematical model from the Sex, Ducks, and Rock and Roll one. I would love to hear everyone's thoughts, especially one how to make the model more complete and expressing different parts of the graphs mathematically. I think mathematics has a lot of potential in creating a model that would yield the diversity of sexual experience, since it can hold more information than other models like the one in my original post. I also think I have an decent hypothesis how to model when orgasms when they are mini, average, and super. It will take me a couple days to complete.

@zentai I think this is where our role is as knowledgeable experiencers in the sexological ecosystem.

Since I'm not a researcher myself, I have the freedom to talk about any research available to me. I just need to be careful with my interpretation and how I word things since many people might stumble upon my posts. Many researchers are not permitted to disseminate their work, and they do not participate in forums such as Aneros, because of lack of personal experience in these things, because they don't know about them, or because it can create sample bias and an obstacle in the IRB approval process. Some argue it may be viewed as participatory field research, but not all IRB board buy it. Sex research is still stigmatized, so they tend to tread very carefully.

One of my goals in my activism is to open researchers eyes to our experiences. So many researchers do not consider them. Males are forgotten when there's any mention of multiple orgasms or different types of orgasms. Anally mediated orgasms, male glan-induced or prostate-induced squirting, and others rarely, if ever, come up. If I see a problem with a recent article, I contact them and ask why there's such omission. Most times, they just didn't think about it, none of their male participants said anything about it, or they think it's so rare it's not worth mentioning. If I see they did great and took extra effort to be inclusive in any way, I thank them.

Since super O is a description of the intensity or profoundness of another typology (e.g., super T) and also describes the psychological states associated with super orgasm, researchers might end up breaking it down into other words but acknowledge super O what the lay community calls it. Researchers tend to not consider orgasm strength or profoundness in typology, since it can be relative to the intensity of all other orgasms the person experienced overtime or recently. It also appears that super orgasms come in different sizes and can be weaker at times as outlined in Aneros posts on the Misconceptions of Super Os. To researchers, the most relevant for typology is where the orgasm itself is felt. Perhaps they can use a multi-dimensional descriptive rating system that segments descriptions into intensity levels such as "super-maximal, super, semi-super, medium, mini, barely intelligible, et cetera, so that these can be used as descriptors of typologies. 

You're right that "a big part will not show up on readings." Head movement, holding breath, room artifacts, etc. can interfere with imaging. Nipple stimulation can distort hormonal tests. There's also a couple second delay in the imaging for fMRI. The technology and methods need to get better for better imaging. The tools people have to convey their subjective experiences also need to improve. There's lots of opportunity for growth, and I think we are a catalyst.

If a mathematical model can model how 1000s of variably influential factors emerge, chaotically interact with each other, and ultimately yield a diversity of experiences from anorgasmia, anejaculation, intercourse without ejaculation, different types of orgasms, wet dreams, premature ejaculation, and delayed orgasm, then we might be able to better conceptualize sexual response. We can use it as a tool to communicate our experiences. A deeper understanding can help one to represent what adding one technique or another into the equation changes different points at different times of the arousal flux. I'm in the process of modelling one of my sessions as an example, as the Sex, Ducks, and Rock and Roll  has a lot of things missing based on my experiences as well as many others in the Aneros community.

While being, say, a baseball historian, does not make someone a good baseball player, if they were to play, the foreknowledge might help them associate concepts with prior learnings for expedited learning. Likewise, being able to understand how complicated sexual response is can help one understand how orgasms or another type can be difficult or relatively easy for some people, how people will have different experiences from time to time, how different people can have vastly different results, and how multiple orgasms, status orgasmus, and super orgasms can be possible for some people under certain conditions.

@cummingrainbows 

I think it's worth adding that I'm not anti-science and that I don't think there is an unexplainable phenomenon taking place during Super-O states. I stated numerous times that my point of view is "Nirvana without mysticism", meaning that we don't have to accept any woo-woo explanation in order to reach S-Os, but if someone thinks it applies to their experience, it's fine by me. Super-Os are worth it and whatever gets you there is perfectly acceptable, as long as you're not hurting yourself.

It's quite possible that there is a way to faithfully model what happens during Super-Orgasms. But such a model would be pretty opaque to most people outside of technical fields. I tend to go the other way, and ask myself, how did the old Tantra practitioners figure things out ? Or even, how would I explain this to someone 10,000 years ago, without knowledge of hormones, neurotransmitters, sexual arousal mechanisms etc. After all, I'm much closer to a hunter-gatherer than to a neuroscientist, and I guess it's true for a lot of Super-O seekers. So when I see such complex modelling, I myself hold some bias, and I tend to feel this is not the right direction. At this point, I think that things are already hard enough to understand, and introducing complexity and 1000s of variable is not going to make things any easier for people already struggling with these concepts. One of my pet theories is that MMOs could and did happen in the wild and that they have some evolutionary purpose, either for reproductive drive or pair bonding. I also think it would make sense that non-sexual Super-Os would be present, like a form of "runner's high", for example. We also know that "core-orgasms" exist in both male and female, and several people do stumble on this by accident.  

The scientist's dream is in some way the Super-O adventurer's nightmare...If there's almost no end to the complexity, how can anyone expect to figure it out by themselves ? This also plays in the expectation issue, expecting the whole process to be extremely complicated won't help any beginner. I tend to think this is in fact fairly simple, but counter-intuitive enough that few people stumble on the secret by accident. We overcomplicate things ourselves. Having some unexplained parts gives a little leeway for personal experimentation and the thrill of the hunt, so to speak. 

@zentai

Long ramble, be forewarned.

TLDR; scientists do stuff because they're curious and usually want to help people, but they have trouble with the "unforeseen consequences" bit. Mathematical model of a Super-O could be used to drive a biofeedback device to make them easier to achieve, especially when combined with "cheap" brain monitoring like EEG.

I think the utility of such experiments would be in quantifying a neurological phenomenon that hasn't been investigated with the scientific method yet. Super-Os are truly on the fringe of our understanding of the human sexual response. Taoist and Hindu meditative practices have explored this phenomenon for centuries, but Western science treats it with skepticism. I mentioned in an earlier post that there are some parallels between the Super-O and epileptic seizures - I would argue that they are both artifacts of the same imperfect system, just with different triggers and symptoms. Understanding the underlying system, the brain, is the primary goal, either for the sake of knowledge itself or to help people lead healthier, happier lives. For a curious scientist, it's unknown territory and thus a rather tempting proposition.

I don't think that applying the scientific method to studying Super-Os would necessarily lead to a formula to achieving them, at least not at first. As with anything, you have to start with simply observing, and all we have right now are people self-reporting their subjective experiences, and the aforementioned spiritual practices that not everyone subscribes to. Removing bias from the equation is an important first step.

There's an obvious downside to this hypothetical scientific inquiry. So many people here have reported Super-Os as a transcendental or borderline religious experience. If it turns out these extremely intimate, possibly life-altering events are simply the product of chemicals and nerve signals, would it cheapen the experience? Would people forgo the journey and rush to the destination, eliminating the potential for personal growth?

Suppose it turns out that during a Super-O, certain regions of the brain show a statistically significant increase in oscillatory entrainment, i.e. neural synchrony. This could theoretically be further amplified with non-invasive techniques like transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) or temporal interference stimulation (TIS), both of which can be used to make large groups of neurons fire. Suppose you use TMS or TIS during Aneros sessions to reinforce that synchrony, sort of a feedback mechanism on steroids. That could help some people experience mindgasms or Super-Os more easily, or also treat anhedonia, without having to resort to drugs or embedded electrodes. The fact that this is a pleasurable experience, as opposed to a debilitating medical condition like epilepsy, would no doubt further research into this area. The obvious danger would be something out of a bad sci-fi movie: being able to induce Super-Os at will, regardless of experience level. It'd be like taking hard drugs, without the legal ramifications. Studying this phenomenon scientifically could help us understand those risks and try to prevent potential abuse, cause you know people are going to abuse it, especially if it becomes easier to achieve.

Regarding the modeling paper, I don't put too much stock in my "analysis" so far. It's for a very abstract model that's tailor-made to replicate a very flawed study on the male orgasm. The results shown in Figure G-H could simply be an anomaly, and the fact that they seem consistent with the Super-O could be coincidence or misinterpretation.  What is encouraging to me is the apparent asymptotic growth of physiological arousal, which could be perceived as infinite pleasure. However, I don't know what to make of the plummeting psychological arousal. Maybe there's a link with the need for relaxation and focus to achieve the Super-O. Mathematicians aren't always the most grounded bunch; they tend to handwave parts of reality that are mathematically inconvenient or, like these authors appear to do, try to account for any uncertainty as biological "noise." To their credit, they admit that their model needs to be expanded to properly study the female sexual response. It's a good first step.

Again, things are still too nascent to know whether a mathematical orgasm model would help achieve Super-Os. If you had the right tools, you could use a model to drive some kind of biofeedback mechanism like described above. In the paper, the authors kept both physiological and psychological stimulation constant. Suppose you can calculate a picture of "arousal space" in realtime, like the phase portraits I shared, using biometrics like heart rate or EEG to get statistics of arousal. Then, you could use some kind of optimization algorithm to adjust stimulation (e.g. binaural beats, vibration, e-stim, TMS, TIS) to get users into the "O-zone" more quickly, then keep them there however long they want. It's kind of dystopian to think about, honestly. Like if I were a malevolent AI using people as a power source, I'd just keep them permanently blissed out rather than constructing The Matrix to keep them pacified. Might almost feel like "heaven" to the victims. Hope a certain popular, large language model doesn't visit these forums...

I've stated previously that oscillator models have been used extensively to study the epileptic brain. The research in that field is broad and deep, and you can conduct simulations at the cellular up to the macroscopic (whole brain) level simulating seizures. If it turns out that the orgasmic brain is an oscillatory system - as the modeling paper suggests - there would be a wide variety of tools available to do simulation experiments. An intrepid researcher could piggyback off of decades of medical science, instead of having to build from the ground up.

@firewire 

This was a great ramble ! I'll answer in depth a little bit later, but here are some random bits. 

We had discussions already about some of the points you mentioned, maybe this would interest you : 

Let’s say there’s a Super-O pill… – General Discussion – Aneros Forum

Surgical procedures to achieve Super Orgasms – General Discussion – Aneros Forum

Some of us had a feeling that things would be quite dystopian indeed...  In the case of surgical procedures, pretty unethical experiments were done, you'll find some info in the link. The results were concerning. 

I've long held the belief that Super-Os could help cure depression or similar mental health issues, if we could control intensity, that is. I'm not sure this would be possible. And of course, having those issues in the first place is not conductive to achieving Super-Os. 

I think that Super-Os are pretty much self-limiting when done sober, but could be too much if somehow forced or chemically helped. I had some troubling experiences myself by using small amounts of THC, to the point of endlessly pestering my fellow S-O seekers about the dangers of THC-induced orgasms. I still think this is unsafe in certain cases, but this would only affect a small % of people. 

From my experience, the movie was right : People would reject "heaven" and you would lose your human crop. I don't know how many people went through Super-O burnout, and I don't have any experience with hard drugs or what withdrawal would be like, but I'd say this was absolutely the most miserable time of my life. This is not a state you are supposed to stay in. This revelation was also terrible in its own right, but this is more related to the idea of the hedonist treadmill and Nirvana : nothing is ever going to be "enough". This is quite a paradigm shift to go through and very hard to accept. 

Related to the mystical or spiritual growth, I already think this is made up of chemical interactions and nerve signals, I don't think this matters a whole lot. Automatic results, as in an implant or pill would be an issue, otherwise, if you think a Creator made us, I don't think it's a big stretch to think he gave us the necessary tools to experience Heaven. As stated earlier, other things would be more concerning than this. 

It's also fun to think about the fact that some other mammals are already multi-orgasmic, and they don't need any deep comprehension or training to do it. One good example is the domestic pig, which can orgasm for 30 to 90 minutes. I think dolphins and bonobo monkeys are also pretty horny creatures, so seeking orgasms outside of reproduction is not exclusive to humans.    

Edit :  Can A.I. help with Super-Os ? – General Discussion – Aneros Forum

Other somewhat random bits. Knowing myself, I'm not sure if I'll come up with a complete answer addressing all you points, so if you have particular topics you want to take further, feel free to say so. 

Posted by: @firewire

↑

This could theoretically be further amplified with non-invasive techniques like transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) or temporal interference stimulation (TIS), both of which can be used to make large groups of neurons fire. Suppose you use TMS or TIS during Aneros sessions to reinforce that synchrony, sort of a feedback mechanism on steroids.

I wonder if this would be like trying to pet a cat with a sledgehammer ? (Note : I love cats !) Some experiences turn into quite complex stories or fantasies, and can involve subtle feelings or even strange ideas or concepts, some of them non-sexual. Maybe we would miss out on the range of Super-O possibilities, but some people would probably don't feel this is such a great loss ? 

I think deep, sober Super-Os are a very clean high, it might be the perfect balance because the brain is playing with its own pleasure reward system without outside influence. I don't know if we'd achieve this balance from outside stimulation, of course, I know nothing about TMS or TIS and how delicate you can be with them. I understand you would want some baseline experience you could try copying, and that mapping Super-Os would be the way to obtain this baseline. 

Posted by: @firewire

↑

It'd be like taking hard drugs, without the legal ramifications. Studying this phenomenon scientifically could help us understand those risks and try to prevent potential abuse, cause you know people are going to abuse it, especially if it becomes easier to achieve.

My experiences made me extremely scared of drugs. The only drugs I have experience with are nicotine, caffeine, alcohol and sugar. Plus THC, starting in 2020. At this point I don't care for anything stronger than Super-Os, I wrote several times in my journal that if stronger pleasure is available, I don't want to have anything to do with it. On the woo-woo front, I've seen several warnings about remaining fully sober after "enlightenment" or "Kundalini awakening" and I think I can now see the logic behind this. You don't want altered-altered states past a certain level. 

Posted by: @firewire

↑

What is encouraging to me is the apparent asymptotic growth of physiological arousal, which could be perceived as infinite pleasure. However, I don't know what to make of the plummeting psychological arousal.

I'm not sure this is right, I'd have to think about it. Are we talking about pleasure intensity or total volume here ? We also would have to agree on what precisely arousal is. Obviously I really need to read the whole study before going further. 

Posted by: @firewire

↑

In the paper, the authors kept both physiological and psychological stimulation constant.

In some cases you can actually ramp down physiological stimulation to nothing once you have a good feedback loop, psychological simulation will mostly ramp up on its own. Plateauing is probably the easiest thing to navigate in Super-O states, I don't think you'd have to optimize anything at this point. 

Posted by: @zentai

↑

I wonder if this would be like trying to pet a cat with a sledgehammer ? (Note : I love cats !) Some experiences turn into quite complex stories or fantasies, and can involve subtle feelings or even strange ideas or concepts, some of them non-sexual. Maybe we would miss out on the range of Super-O possibilities, but some people would probably don't feel this is such a great loss ? 

These techniques are quite subtle in how they work, especially TIS. It would take multiple sessions to have a noticeable effect, most likely. If you really turn on the juice though, it could possibly induce seizures. Research is pretty slow right now, for good reason. It's not like mind control, more like giving the target neurons a bit of a "nudge."

↑

I understand you would want some baseline experience you could try copying, and that mapping Super-Os would be the way to obtain this baseline. 

Exactly. The issue is there would inevitably be individual variations, hence the need for good mathematical models, including a brain model. I don't know of an effective way to accomplish this without resorting to full-brain scans, which can be very expensive. If you have a good brain model, you can then combine it with an oscillator model and simulate the progression of a Super-O, and what the effects of brain stimulation would be on that progression. This is already done for epilepsy patients and seizures.

Essentially it allows you to dig around in a person's head without invasive surgery. The goal isn't necessarily pinpoint accuracy for every single user; it's likely sufficient to create a composite brain model that explains as much variance in Super-O brain activity as possible, then make adjustments for things like head size so the results are consistent.

Posted by: @zentai

↑

Plus THC, starting in 2020. At this point I don't care for anything stronger than Super-Os, I wrote several times in my journal that if stronger pleasure is available, I don't want to have anything to do with it.

Yeah, I get that. I read your warnings here and have tried to pass them on to people on the r/aneros and r/prostateplay subreddits. Over there they treat THC as a silver bullet, which is disturbing since it can make people try weed when they otherwise wouldn't. This is less of a problem for grown adults, but may cause schizophrenia in teenagers. The brain is pretty plastic and will adapt to dramatically different conditions when possible. It's like the saying that if you keep frowning, your face will get stuck that way. If you're in a Super-O state and the brain goes, "Well, guess this is the new normal," that could be extremely debilitating, and there isn't any guarantee that you can get "unstuck."

Posted by: @zentai

↑

Are we talking about pleasure intensity or total volume here ? We also would have to agree on what precisely arousal is.

Good point. I don't have a good answer, and previously mentioned that the mathematical oscillator model is rather abstract unfortunately. They don't elaborate on the distinction between physiological and psychological arousal, just that they are two coupled processes. They don't really deal with pleasure - I was making a logical leap from increasing arousal to perceived pleasure. That's another reason to do an imaging study: to establish the neural correlates for both arousal and perceived pleasure, by asking a subject to continuously report intensity during a recording session. If the growth in intensity is correlated with the growth of arousal in the model, well you have an answer. I don't know why psychological arousal would decrease, and would expect the opposite to occur. Unfortunately this model uses it as a "dampener" and would not function correctly without it.

Posted by: @zentai

↑

...you can actually ramp down physiological stimulation to nothing once you have a good feedback loop, psychological simulation will mostly ramp up on its own. Plateauing is probably the easiest thing to navigate in Super-O states, I don't think you'd have to optimize anything at this point. 

That's another difference from the modeling paper. They assume that both kinds of stimulation are outside forces, not a variable in the model. For Aneros users, both physiological and psychological stimulation are variables, since the former will modulate depending on arousal and muscle fatigue, and the latter can spike when the user perceives the beginning of an orgasm. About the plateauing, that's actually consistent with my "analysis" post, since there's a stable node in that model state. The asymptotic growth of arousal may be a mathematical contrivance, but it's awful convenient for explaining the perception of infinite arousal. At least, it matches my subjective experience quite well.

That modeling paper is written by mathematicians, for mathematicians. I've been inundated in the stuff for years, but there was still lots of material I hadn't seen before. If you're pressed for time, I recommend reading Sections I, III, and VI. The rest of it is mostly analysis of the system's behavior, which isn't necessarily relevant to this discussion.

@firewire 

Hmmm, the way I see it, these experiments can only end in devising a way to externally trigger Super-Os. I think you'll agree that someone will try it at some point, and will probably be able to give himself some dirty, rough Super-Os with some kind of weird looking helmet device. 

Like you said, it will all start with good intentions. Then someone will say : "Hey, just because you can, doesn't mean you should."  Then they'll do it anyway. My prediction is that more widespread acceptance will make this practically unavoidable, because a normal reflex of achieving Super-Os is wanting to share.

The folk at Mindgasm mostly have things figured out when it comes to describing what involuntary contractions feel like. Mix that with some well-designed E-Stim devices and haptics, and it's even less intrusive because we're not stimulating the brain itself. This would hardly need any mapping.

Honestly, normal Super-Os that you train for and achieve without external help are probably as safe as can be for 99.9% of users. Triggered ones would likely end up like that story about the test subject who wore out her fingertips playing with the controls of her stimulation machine with brain implant. In this scenario, "Super-O addiction counselor" becomes a good future career idea.

--

Posted by: @firewire

↑

Over there they treat THC as a silver bullet, which is disturbing since it can make people try weed when they otherwise wouldn't.

I tried it for Super-Os after not being even curious about it for 37 years... If I had discovered the combo earlier, it would have ended pretty badly. As a teenager ? I don't want to think about it. I'm not perfect, I did have a THC session 2 weeks ago, and it was a pretty good session. I do know that sticking to very low doses and using less-than-optimal strains is the only way to make sure this is as safe as possible for me. I'd be further along if I never tried it, and I can't see myself ever encouraging people to use it for their sessions. My point is that I would probably say the same thing about the "Orgasmatron 3000" after getting out of an addiction pattern with it, and I figure that everyone could be a super-responder once the settings are correctly adjusted to a specific user. 

Posted by: @firewire

↑

I don't know why psychological arousal would decrease, and would expect the opposite to occur. Unfortunately this model uses it as a "dampener" and would not function correctly without it.

Contentment would be an easy answer, but I don't know if it fits the pattern. Guys who experience calms seas would be able to answer this better than I can. There are several ways arousal could go down or plateau without affecting the orgasm in any negative manner. 

Posted by: @firewire

↑

The asymptotic growth of arousal may be a mathematical contrivance, but it's awful convenient for explaining the perception of infinite arousal. At least, it matches my subjective experience quite well.

Can you share a bit of your experience regarding arousal being potentially infinite ? 

Helghasts super o are what an extended male orgasm response looks like 😂

For me,they won’t be able to get super o into the touch of a button. There are more components that go into a super o than just chemicals. There is focus,relaxation,mental state,mental strength,dedicating oneself self to anchieving orgasmic perfection,health,remapping of transmitters etc.

Even if they did,it would destroy society imo. Look at those cats smacked out on fentanyl and zombie drugs. That’d be a huge number of ppl,not dating,not fucking,not procreating,calling into work sick,missing social plans and hobbies just so they could lie at home and press the fucking button. Massive addiction issues. In a worse case scenario,we could end up in some ‘Handmaids Tale’ type dystopian world.We’ll have enough problems with sex robots neve mind super o bots. Everyone thought it was nukes,maybe ai and bots will be how we finally wipe ourselves out 😃

Outside of drugs,the body mostly regulates super o activity. Even then,journeymen still report problems.

The trick is not to push your luck. The things we report here ARE the extended response.

Posted by: @helghast

↑

The things we report here ARE the extended response.

Oh yes ! This is the most straightforward way to put it. Wrapping everything up in a nice little package might be harder than achieving S-Os in the first place. 

I don't think there's a more complete repository of MMO knowledge than this Forum, anyone who wants to get an understanding of this phenomena should start here. 

@zentai 

In fact,when you were balls deep in thc sessions,what’s the longest biggest session you ever had? 

@helghast 

4 hours sessions were not uncommon, sometimes I would start one at 20:00, go to bed at midnight, wake up at 3:00, start another one, etc. The drive was always there.