Study finds women still get screwed on orgasms — and the blame doesn't just fall on men
If this was a newspaper and not a nice shiny website plugged into the wall with a few blue cables coming out the back, then there is only one headline we would use on this story: Come again?
Today we have new research out of the US where some academics have dedicated themselves to the burning question: Why aren't women having more orgasms?
Advertisement
Sadly, big tech, big pharma and big porn, despite being industries worth a combined $21 trillion, have failed to solve this.
Enter a new study that has some answers.
Published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, this research has identified what is really going wrong in the bedroom — we are suffering from an Orgasm Pursuit Gap (OGP).
Straight men and women both prioritize the man orgasming — and that far less effort, on everyone's part, went into the woman achieving similar results, the study essentially found.
gpointstudio – stock.adobe.com
Advertisement
That is, how much perceived effort, both partners, put into a woman orgasming.
The study found that, essentially, straight men and women both prioritize the man getting there (sly wink) and that far less effort, on everyone's part, went into the woman achieving similar results.
Sigh. Great. Just great.
We (writing as a cis gender woman) are, statistically, paid less, do more housework and childcare, report higher rates of feeling rushed and pressed for time, and are more likely to die of stroke.
Advertisement
And now, it turns out that we are being even further short-changed in the bedroom.
Who do we ask for a refund?
The study was led by Carly Wolfer, a doctoral candidate in social psychology at City University of New York, who asked 127 people in heterosexual relationships aged 18-40-years-old to keep sex diaries for three weeks, a span which ultimately tracked 566 sexual events.
Advertisement
Ms Wolfer found that men orgasmed during 90 percent of their sexual encounters while women only got to the same place just over half the time, at 54 percent.
It gets worse.
Not only are men 15 times more likely to orgasm than women but when they do they have more satisfying orgasms.
(Programming note: I vehemently refuse to use the word 'climax'. We are not trapped in the early aughties badlands of mags doing stories like '15 ways to blow his mind'.)
That's 'not because it's 'just naturally harder' for women to orgasm — a common myth,' Wilder told the HuffPost, 'but because we put less effort into the sexual practices that support women's pleasure, like clitoral stimulation.'
Or to put it another way, heterosexual couples have a general tendency to do the things, positions, and upside-down, back-to-front, standing-on-your-head gymnastics that help men orgasm over what works for women.
Moreover, while this is going on, the research showed that both him and her are more focused on the guy orgasming, rather than the gal equally.
Wolfer found that men orgasmed during 90 percent of their sexual encounters while women only got to the same place just over half the time, at 54 percent.
Pixel-Shot – stock.adobe.com
Advertisement
Et voila, the orgasm pursuit gap.
As Wolfer explained to the HuffPost, the OGP is about 'how much someone wants an orgasm to happen — whether it's their own or their partner's — and how much effort they put into making it happen.'
From a feminist standpoint this all makes me want to grind my teeth and start emitting the sort of noises better suited to a pitbull chained up to a fence who is having a very bad day.
When it comes to female sexual enjoyment, the figures are a real turn off.
Advertisement
Last year the sex toy company Womanizer's We-Vibe sex and relationships study found that barely 40 percent of women across all age brackets are actually satisfied with the amount of sex they are having.
Meanwhile, an Australian study has previously found that only one in four women regularly masturbate, dealing a devastating blow to double AA battery sales.
Overall, researchers found that in the past year, nearly three quarters (72 percent) of men had masturbated but only just a bit more than one in three women (42 percent).
Advertisement
According to Womanizer's numbers, overall, 62 percent of women don't own a single sex toy.
So women of Australia it's time to unite: We are being shortchanged, and short changing ourselves, in the bedroom.
Forget budget deficits, we are massively stuck in a far more pressing orgasm deficit, strangely an issue that has not come up during this election cycle.
(Imagining Prime Minister Athony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton even spluttering their way through saying the word 'orgasms' as they turned various shades of puce and became increasingly flustered is the best fun you can have with your pants on today.
Advertisement
No one should ever lie back and think of Canberra.)
The moral of all this: When it comes to your next sexual event, everyone needs to try.
Everyone needs to come to the party.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
A New COVID Variant Is Here, And It's More Transmissible — Here Are The Signs And Symptoms
A new COVID variant known as NB.1.8.1 has made landfall in the United States. The variant, which was first detected in China this past January, currently accounts for 10% of the SARS-CoV-2 sequences tested from around the world, recent surveillance data found. That's a significant jump from 2.5% four weeks ago. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) spokesperson told HuffPost that the agency is in regular contact with international partners about the activity of NB.1.8.1. To date, only 20 NB.1.8.1 sequences have been identified in the U.S. — that's below the threshold needed for a variant to appear on the agency's COVID dashboard. (As soon as its prevalence increases, NB.1.8.1 will pop up on the tracker, the spokesperson added.) It's nerve-wracking to hear that a new variant is making the rounds, but infectious disease specialists say there are no glaring differences between the symptoms of NB.1.8.1 and those caused by other versions of SARS-CoV-2. 'Currently it appears that NB.1.8.1 would have similar symptoms to other COVID variants that have recently been circulating,' Dr. Zachary Hoy, a pediatric infectious disease specialist with Pediatrix Medical Group in Nashville, Tennessee, told HuffPost. Here's what to know about the newest COVID variant that's gaining traction around the world. Compared to the currently dominant variant in the U.S. (LP.8.1), NB.1.8.1 has a handful of new mutations on the spike protein that may enhance its ability to bind to our cells, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The agency suspects these mutations will increase the virus's transmissibility and, potentially, diminish the effectiveness of neutralizing antibodies that prevent pathogens from latching to our cells. In other words, the variant may be skilled at dodging some of our immune defenses, research suggests. According to Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious diseases expert and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, NB.1.8.1's symptoms are pretty much the same as those seen with other SARS-CoV-2 variants. Two of COVID's hallmark symptoms are a mild but persistent dry cough and nasal congestion, Hoy said. Many people who come down with COVID are also hit with fatigue and tiredness. 'An infected person can still make it through the day, but they are resting more and feel more tired throughout the day,' Hoy said. Other common symptoms include a fever, chills, a sore throat and muscle aches. 'Some have described recent variants as less intense symptoms as compared to wintertime influenza viruses, but both can have severe symptoms,' Hoy said. There's no evidence suggesting the variant causes more severe disease or an uptick in hospitalizations or deaths, the WHO states. The only noticeable aspect, as of now, is that it's rising in prevalence, Adalja said. It's too early to know exactly how effective the shots are — as the research on NB.1.8.1 is limited since it's so new — but scientists expect the shots to hold up well. NB.1.8.1 broke off from the Omicron JN.1 lineage, which the 2024-2025 vaccines target. 'The ability of the vaccines to prevent severe illness is intact though protection versus infection is limited and transient,' Adalja said. Anyone who is at risk of severe disease should stay up-to-date with the shots. 'Those in older populations or with underlying immune disorders or on immune-decreasing medications would benefit more from vaccination or those with increased exposure such as healthcare workers,' Hoy added. So if you have a condition that puts you at risk, it's worth getting vaccinated if it's been more than six months since your last vaccine or bout of COVID, Adalja advises. He also added that those who are low-risk likely do not need to go out and get another shot. Most people will be able to recover at home by resting and staying hydrated. While you're sick, acetaminophen and ibuprofen can help alleviate muscle aches and fevers, Hoy said. And, in most cases, symptoms should clear up within a week. For those who are at risk for severe disease, including older adults and people who are immune-compromised, it's worth contacting a physician as they can prescribe antivirals — Paxlovid and Molnupiravir — that can significantly lower the risk of severe complications and death. As was the case with previous variants, these antivirals work best when started within five days of symptom onset. As for when you should go to an urgent care or emergency room? When you have chest pain, have a hard time waking up or staying awake, or feel confused and disoriented, the CDC advises. Hoy says the most concerning symptom he wants patients about is difficulty breathing. 'If you have COVID or COVID-like illness and have worsening trouble breathing or chest pain, you should be evaluated at your doctor's office, urgent care or the ER,' he said. RFK Jr. Says COVID Shot Will No Longer Be Advised For Healthy Kids, Pregnant Women Trump's FDA Has Axed COVID Boosters For Most People — And Medical Experts Are Deeply Worried New Trump Vaccine Policy Limits Access To COVID Shots
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Yahoo
National Science Foundation Ends 196 Grants To Harvard Amid Feud With Trump
WASHINGTON ― The National Science Foundation has terminated dozens of active grants with Harvard University for reasons that NSF employees told HuffPost can only be viewed as punishment for the university refusing to cave to President Donald Trump's authoritarian efforts to dictate what it can teach and who it can hire or admit as students. NSF last week quietly ended 196 grants with Harvard, which amounts to a collective loss of nearly $46 million that hasn't yet been paid out to the university for various research projects already underway. HuffPost obtained a copy of the full list of these canceled awards, but isn't printing it at the request of the NSF staffer who shared it. Jamie French, a division director in NSF's Division of Grants and Agreements, last Monday sent a 'notice of termination' letter to Harvard president Alan Garber along with a list of all the canceled grants. 'The agency has determined that termination of certain awards is necessary because they are not in alignment with current NSF priorities and/or programmatic goals,' reads French's letter. 'NSF understands that Harvard continues to engage in race discrimination including in its admissions process, and in other areas of student life, as well as failing to promote a research environment free of antisemitism and bias.' 'Effective immediately, the attached awards are terminated,' reads his letter. 'This is the final agency decision and not subject to appeal.' NSF is yanking research grants from Harvard as Trump has been threatening the university to comply with his Orwellian list of demands, or risk losing federal funding. His demands include ending all programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI; shutting down academic departments that may be critical of Israel; limiting admissions of foreign students; and banning certain student groups from campus. Harvard has said no. The Trump administration claims to be motivated by rooting out anti-semitism on college campuses, but in fact has been trying to unconstitutionally silence pro-Palestinian voices and, chillingly, to stifle academic freedom and intellectual inquiry. Here's a copy of French's letter: The grants that NSF just canceled have been funding a range of cutting-edge research. One project has been studying the impacts of volcanic eruption on the stratosphere. Another has been tracking methane emissions at different scales. Another has been developing 'neural network theory for uncovering how the brain learns.' NSF terminated a major award to the Center for Integrated Quantum Materials, which is led by Harvard but involves other universities. Its cancellation means related awards to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Howard University and a network of colleges are all terminated, too. This grant has supported the center's work in producing a whopping 545 papers and 60,000 citations in scientific papers, in addition to graduate students, post-doctorate students, patents and startup companies. NSF employees were 'blindsided' by this grant being canceled, one NSF staffer told HuffPost. It appears to have been terminated by a single person who is part of Elon Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency and who has 'admin credentials in our financial system,' said this employee, who requested anonymity to protect their job. The termination of this award also makes no sense given that the Trump administration has specifically told NSF employees that quantum research is a top funding priority as it reorganizes the agency. Unless Harvard is involved, apparently. 'Pure retribution,' added this staffer. 'We as a nation are shooting ourselves in both feet. Willingly. The brain drain will be profound.' Asked for comment, NSF spokesperson Mike England said the agency terminated its 196 grants with Harvard as part of its 'review of its award portfolio.' 'The agency has determined that termination of certain awards is necessary because they are not in alignment with current NSF priorities and/or programmatic goals,' England said in a statement, sharing a link to a page on NSF's website that outlines its priorities. Except this page specifically cites quantum research as a funding priority for the agency, which contradicts its decision to terminate the major quantum grant previously cited. Asked to explain the discrepancy, England said only, 'NSF declines comment.' A Harvard University spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment. Trump has been blatantly weaponizing the government to try to punish Harvard. He's threatened $9 billion in federal grants and contracts. He's threatened to strip the university of its tax-exempt status. The administration last week announced it was cutting $450 million in grants to the university, citing its supposed fight against anti-semitism. NSF's terminated grants with Harvard are a piece of that $450 million. Still, unlike some other elite institutions, Harvard isn't backing down. The university last month sued the administration for freezing billions of dollars in grants in what it described as an effort to 'gain control of academic decision-making at Harvard.' In response to Trump terminating its $450 million in grants last week, Harvard simply expanded its lawsuit. The university's president announced last week that he's taking a 25% pay cut as Harvard is being 'blacklisted' from getting federal funding. 'The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,' Garber said last month in a message to the community. 'No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.' It's not clear if NSF's terminated grants with Harvard can or will be restored if the university prevails in its lawsuit against the administration. Some of NSF's newly terminated grants were being used by early-career faculty, as part of the agency's so-called CAREER program. These are prestigious grants specifically aimed at lifting up scientists early in their careers who have the potential to serve as academic role models in U.S. research and education. One CAREER grant was being used by a young assistant professor working on quantum properties of topological materials, or substances with unusual electronic properties because of their unique structures. The principal investigator in this research has already achieved a stunning 33,000 citations of his papers, despite being so early in his career. Another CAREER award that NSF just terminated was being used by a young investigator looking into methods to 'stabilize novel oxide-based quantum materials.' This work is considered vital for things like low-energy computing or dissipationless transport, which is the movement of energy without any loss or conversion of that energy into other forms, like heat. NSF employees learned of all of these Harvard grants being terminated last Wednesday, and the news was received both as a shock and as a devastating blow to science. The agency previously halted funding for hundreds of research awards to universities by claiming they weren't complying with Trump's demands to eliminate DEI initiatives. This time, though, the Harvard grant cancellations appear to be totally random ― except that they all involve Harvard. This decision was 'a huge mistake, with irreparable consequences and leading to lasting damage,' said a second NSF employee, who also requested anonymity to protect their job. 'A decision seemingly driven by pure revenge, not by any logical reasons.'
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Yahoo
New Study Reveals Drinking This Much Alcohol Each Week Increases Risk Factors Associated With Dementia
There have been lots of recent headlines about the dangers of alcohol consumption when it comes to increasing your cancer risk and contributing to your chance of developing liver disease, high blood pressure and more. Alcohol use is also linked to cognitive decline, and a recent study published in the journal Neurology found that consuming a certain number of drinks each week increases the chance of brain injuries that can increase your risk of dementia. Researchers in Brazil studied 1,781 people after death via autopsy and found that those who had up to seven and more than eight drinks weekly had higher chances of brain injuries that are connected to memory function and dementia. Relatives of the participants reported their drinking habits. Participants were then broken up into four categories; people who never drank, moderate drinkers (those who consumed up to seven standard drinks each week), heavy drinkers (those who consumed eight or more standard drinks each week) and former drinkers (those who had not had alcohol in at least three months but were heavy drinkers prior). A standard drink was considered 14 grams of alcohol, or the equivalent to 12 ounces of beer or 5 ounces of wine. There are limitations to this study. Family members may have misremembered, or not truly known, how much their relative drank. But, experts agree that the study underscores the negative impact alcohol has on the brain. 'The findings of this study confirm what we have thought for a long time, in that chronic alcohol use can be associated with dementia and Alzheimer's disease,' Dr. Mike Sevilla, a family medicine physician in Ohio, told HuffPost via email. Sevilla is not affiliated with the study. More, the amount of alcohol that can lead to brain injury is likely lower than you'd expect with researchers defining 'heavy' drinking as eight or more drinks each week. That's a glass of wine every night and, say, two on a Saturday. 'Heavy drinking, in as defined by these authors, is not all that heavy. It's not the person who's drinking a quart vodka every night, which I think everyone would recognize that's probably not good for your brain,' said Dr. Brendan Kelley, the clinical operations vice chair in the department of neurology at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Texas. Kelley is not affiliated with the study. 'I think there's also an important public health message in there as well, that while moderation may be less harmful or toxic to your brain, moderation may be a little bit lower than what we intuitively think,' he said. Here's what to know about alcohol consumption risk of cognitive decline: Those in the heavy drinker category had 133% higher risk of hyaline arteriolosclerosis, which is the thickening and hardening of the arteries, and which can impact memory function. Former heavy drinkers had an 89% higher risk of the condition and moderate drinkers had a 60% increased risk. 'Hyaline arteriosclerosis leads to decreased travel of blood through the brain tissue, which can lead to episodes of small strokes in the brain, which definitely result in increased dementia,' said Sevilla. Healthy blood circulation is important for a healthy brain (and a healthy body, too). When it comes to blood supply in relation to your brain, 'at a very high level, our blood supply brings all of the nutrients ... all of the micronutrients, like vitamins and minerals, the blood supply is what's delivering those to the cells, to the neurons,' Kelley noted. Our blood supply also carries away waste, he said. 'In the normal state, your blood vessels are flexible. So, as the pressure increases ... if you think of the pulse as a wave that's coming through, it's going to expand and be able to dynamically move,' Kelley said. As the blood vessels harden, 'it's going to basically drive up the pressure and be more rigid in terms of delivering blood supply,' he said. Meaning, it'll be harder for the nutrients to get where they need to go and for toxins to get out. 'We as a field, as neurology, are increasingly recognizing that paying attention to those vascular components [your blood vessel system] is really going to be important for our patients in terms of preserving their brain health and preserving their cognitive function,' said Kelley. Specifically, research is being done regarding the very small blood vessels that branch off of the larger blood vessels. 'Because we recognize in the field that they play a critical role, not just in developing cognitive impairment, but also in propagating Alzheimer's disease changes in the brain,' Kelley said. Study researchers also found that heavy drinkers and former heavy drinkers were also more likely to develop neurofibrillary tangles (41% and 31% higher respectively), also known as tau tangles, which 'are the distinct protein structures in the brain most associated with dementia, and Alzheimer's disease, especially in more severe later stages,' Sevilla said. 'Even for those who are no longer chronic alcohol users, the injury to the brain may have already been done, as their risk for dementia is still there,' added Sevilla. If you find that you're drinking in the heavy or moderate categories often, it could be a good idea to cut back on your alcohol consumption. Not only will this benefit your brain health, but will benefit your overall health, too. 'Those same factors that are good for our cardiac health, our heart health, it just makes natural sense that they're also going to be good for preserving our brain health,' said Kelley. Regular exercise, a nutritious diet and taking any necessary medications are great ways to keep both your heart and brain healthy. 'It's never too late to make these positive changes,' Kelley said. Kelley also pointed out that in the study, heavy drinkers and former heavy drinkers had higher rates of smoking, which is also detrimental to both your brain and heart health. 'That also is probably almost like a double whammy, where you've got multiple factors kind of beating up on the vascular system,' Kelley said. While it's not too late to add healthy interventions to your lifestyle, it's also not too late to cut out the things that are harmful. 'Even people who are in their 70s and still smoking can still enjoy a positive benefit for brain health and also for their overall health by smoking cessation even later in life,' he noted. 'I think there's also probably a normal human tendency that as you're getting older, you're like, oh, darn, I wish I had done this 20 years ago. But I think it's just important to really emphasize to people it's never too late to start,' Kelley said. Need help with substance use disorder or mental health issues? In the U.S., call 800-662-HELP (4357) for the SAMHSA National Helpline. Your Alcohol Bottles May Look Different Soon — And It Might Make You Drink Less Has Your Alcohol Tolerance Changed With Age? Or Could It Actually Be Perimenopause? Your Body On Alcohol: How It Affects Your Heart, Liver, Weight And Cancer Risk
