We have to at least accept there is a sort of natural, physiological baseline. There has been strong evolutionary pressure on male orgasm because it is necessary for reproduction.
The article says:
>Men’s orgasm rates ranged from 70% to 85%, while women’s ranged from 46% to 58%.
The article does recognize there are "physiological" factors but omits it from their conclusion:
>This study revealed enduring disparities in orgasm rates from sexual intercourse, likely resulting from many factors, including sociocultural norms and inadequate sex education.
The gap remaining across ages would be consistent with physiological factors dominating.
I think it would be interesting to figure out what this natural baseline was. If you could take out all social factors and see the percentages. I imagine it would be far more skewed.
Despite recent social developments, the tendency in academia and "polite society" is still to dance around or engage in pretty blatant doublespeak when it comes to anything that sounds like bioessentialism.
For me the topic orgasm gap shows the hypocrisy of feminism: it was never about equality.
Men suffer from far worse health problems across many countries (having far short life spans) and discrimination issues acros all developed education systems. Yet 1.) many feminist denies these problems, saying it's men's fault
2.) these problems have far more consequences in life than unsatisfied sex life
3.) an invidual woman can avoid this issue a lot easier than boy facing discrimination in the education system. (Just change the partner, don't start a commitment)
In time of limited public attention education and health issues must be addressed than the organism gap.
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. That's like going the wrong way on a one-way street and breaking the speed limit at the same time.
I’ve heard the exact same argument against Viagra pills.
Society is very large, so we can tackle big and small issues. And I’m sure it’s more effective to let people choose smaller issues, than force them to work on big issues they don’t care about and are probably redundant.
If anything it shows how little you know about feminism. Feminists have pointed out the issues in education gap and violence since a good 50 years by now, they just don't take it as their most pressing causes.
It's amazing that an activist group that actually shows far more awareness of the systemic issues that affect all genders is being held to an impossibly high standard when no "masculinist" group or whatever non-existant equivalent is out there doesn't even care in the first place.
Women have an easier time dating, women get 60+% of the college degrees, and now get most of the jobs. Women have nothing to complain about in 2026 America.
Did you not read or just ignore that part from the article you linked:
» Because women tend to earn less than men, Ullrich said winning a higher share of jobs could mean companies are focusing hiring on lower-wage roles. Given that women are more likely to have multiple jobs, Ullrich said some of the gains could stem from workers who are stretching themselves thin.
“You could look at it and say, ‘Yay, women,’” Ullrich said. But, “I don’t think it’s necessarily a positive story for women overall.” «
We have to at least accept there is a sort of natural, physiological baseline. There has been strong evolutionary pressure on male orgasm because it is necessary for reproduction.
The article says:
>Men’s orgasm rates ranged from 70% to 85%, while women’s ranged from 46% to 58%.
The article does recognize there are "physiological" factors but omits it from their conclusion:
>This study revealed enduring disparities in orgasm rates from sexual intercourse, likely resulting from many factors, including sociocultural norms and inadequate sex education.
The gap remaining across ages would be consistent with physiological factors dominating.
I think it would be interesting to figure out what this natural baseline was. If you could take out all social factors and see the percentages. I imagine it would be far more skewed.
Despite recent social developments, the tendency in academia and "polite society" is still to dance around or engage in pretty blatant doublespeak when it comes to anything that sounds like bioessentialism.
Whether or not the gap that actually remains is consistent (let alone causal) cannot be determined from these limited data.
Subtle difference in wording, big difference in meaning. The former is correct, but many readers will "upgrade" it to the latter, stronger claim.
I guess it depends on how you look at it but you could say that male or female young or old, life is one long orgasm with certain gaps in between :)
it would seem our house is an outlier....
For me the topic orgasm gap shows the hypocrisy of feminism: it was never about equality. Men suffer from far worse health problems across many countries (having far short life spans) and discrimination issues acros all developed education systems. Yet 1.) many feminist denies these problems, saying it's men's fault 2.) these problems have far more consequences in life than unsatisfied sex life 3.) an invidual woman can avoid this issue a lot easier than boy facing discrimination in the education system. (Just change the partner, don't start a commitment)
In time of limited public attention education and health issues must be addressed than the organism gap.
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. That's like going the wrong way on a one-way street and breaking the speed limit at the same time.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
I’ve heard the exact same argument against Viagra pills.
Society is very large, so we can tackle big and small issues. And I’m sure it’s more effective to let people choose smaller issues, than force them to work on big issues they don’t care about and are probably redundant.
If anything it shows how little you know about feminism. Feminists have pointed out the issues in education gap and violence since a good 50 years by now, they just don't take it as their most pressing causes.
It's amazing that an activist group that actually shows far more awareness of the systemic issues that affect all genders is being held to an impossibly high standard when no "masculinist" group or whatever non-existant equivalent is out there doesn't even care in the first place.
Women have an easier time dating, women get 60+% of the college degrees, and now get most of the jobs. Women have nothing to complain about in 2026 America.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2026/09/04/jobs-report-women-payrol...
Did you not read or just ignore that part from the article you linked:
» Because women tend to earn less than men, Ullrich said winning a higher share of jobs could mean companies are focusing hiring on lower-wage roles. Given that women are more likely to have multiple jobs, Ullrich said some of the gains could stem from workers who are stretching themselves thin.
“You could look at it and say, ‘Yay, women,’” Ullrich said. But, “I don’t think it’s necessarily a positive story for women overall.” «