A few months ago, Dr. Rena Malik discussed multiple orgasms with Nicole Prause, who is skeptical of the existence of female multiple orgasms. Prause’s skepticism stems from her unpublished study of 24 women in her lab reporting multiple orgasms without exhibiting the gold standard pelvic floor contractions even a single time, not multiple times (e.g., r/orgasmiccontractions; r/gayorgasmcontractions), a pattern also noted by Bohlen et al. (1982) and by several early sex researchers. The 264 comments of this YouTube video feature a controversy between the physiological definition of female orgasm and the subjective, varied experiences described as orgasm by the commenters.

On Reddit, people have assumed that my opinion and Prause’s are one and the same. However, that is not exactly true. While I agree with Prause that the reflex is a gold standard for orgasm, I do not share her skepticism about multiples (multiple evocations of urogenital reflex in a few minutes). Recently, in support of the existence of multiple orgasms, my binary contraction analysis of single-shot, close-up porn videos shows that multiple instances of the orgasm contractions a few minutes in one “session.” Yet, like Prause, I am skeptical of claims of hundreds or thousands of orgasms due to the increasing neural inhibition with each event. If such high numbers do exist, I want to be the first to document conclusive evidence. I am curious as to why Prause’s study was never published not even in blog form or the Liberos website, but this serves as the preliminary first peer-review.

What Prause more accurately observed is the emergence of expanded orgasm typology in the lab, where other things are increasingly being called an orgasm or types of orgasm due to resemblance to the set of things associated with orgasm. The females in the study called other things (peaking sensations, tension-release instances) rather than the system of events that cooccur with the involuntary burst of orgasm contractions. This is expected to be ever more common with the growth of expanded orgasm typology in both males and females. This is expected to be ever more common with the growth of expanded orgasm typology in both males and females, something Prause has not experienced with males in her lab.  Something for researchers to watch out for, as the 10+ top sex researchers with a focus on orgasm I’ve spoken to were unaware of many well documented phenomena by the online community with video evidence and anecdotes, as both males and females are using it more commonly (e.g., see r/multiorgasmic, r/prostateplay, r/Aneros, r/Mindgasm, r/nipplegasm, r/malesquirting, etc.).

Summary of Prause’s claims:

• Orgasm is a specific, stereotyped neurophysiological event defined by a series of “8 to 12+ involuntary pelvic floor contractions starting ~0.8 seconds apart.” Multiple orgasm would be two or more of these instances within a few minutes as usually defined.
• Prolactin contributes to the refractory period and sexual satiety, although prolactin as a sole cause is well contested with endogenous opioids and serotonin also playing a role (See here).
• Physiologically, orgasms defined by muscular contractions are “virtually identical” and “indistinguishable by gender.” This challenges the narrative of a major biological difference in the reflex and dismantles the popular notion of women possessing a “special superpower that men can’t access.” She proposes a unified model of sexual response where the primary variance is definitional and cultural, not biological, moving from a “gender difference” model to a “definitional variance” model.
• Some female, like some males, have shorter refractory periods, meaning that they can have some a few minutes apart. The perceived gender gap in multi-orgasmic capacity may be definitional, not biological. If women are culturally conditioned to use a broader definition of “orgasm” that includes various peak pleasure events, they will report more occurrences. Many of these subjective events may not trigger the physiological refractory period, enabling continued sexual activity. This suggests the difference is not a biological “superpower” (as argued by some second-wave feminists like Mary Sherfey) but a socio-linguistic phenomenon. Consequently, men may also experience non-satiating peak pleasures but are conditioned to reserve the term “orgasm” for the singular, ejaculatory urogenital reflex. This aligns with the suggestion that men could be cognitively “trained” to identify and value multiple pleasure peaks, effectively becoming multi-orgasmic by adopting a more inclusive definition, a practice already observed in communities like r/multiorgasmic, r/Aneros, r/prostateplay, r/Mindgasm, BDSM groups, and other communities.
• Two interpretations emerge: Dr. Prause’s collaborator thinks that women experience different types of orgasms (some physiological, some psychological), while Dr. Prause argues the issue is primarily definitional. She contends the public lacks education on the precise scientific definition of climax and instead learns to associate “orgasm” with any “peak pleasure experience.” She notes that many such events (e.g., piloerection or “goosebumps”) occur prior to climax and could be mislabeled. Or, in other words, they are still calling different things orgasms, so Prause and her colleague basically come to the same conclusion: people are calling different phenomena orgasms.
• Not any contraction counts as on orgasm; it must meet a certain profile. Lots of non-urogenital reflex contraction profiles exist (involuntary pushing out, involuntary clenching, NEO contractions, anal wink, etc.). Prause recounts the story of a company (Lioness Smart Vibrator) with only engineers who created a vibrator with sensors. They misinterpreted signal noise and movement as data, announcing three new “orgasm types” (wave, avalanche, volcano), although the engineers have read and referenced Bohlen et al.’s work on their website. Physiologist Nicole Prause recognized this as a measurement artifact, not a biological discovery. This error exemplifies “digital phrenology,” where tech invents typologies from misunderstood data. It risks creating new sexual anxieties, as individuals may worry about not having the “right kind” of orgasm. This data-cloaked wrong information is uniquely pernicious and difficult to dismiss, especially that Lioness now paid researchers to use their data and end up using their artifact typology (Pfaus et al., 2022).
• Dr. Prause distinguishes between professional contexts: in therapy, a client’s report of multiple orgasms should be validated (“congratulations, glad to hear you’re having fun”), as subjective experience is paramount. However, “In the lab, [the precise definition] matters” to understand underlying physiological mechanisms. This highlights the differing epistemological goals of clinical practice (prioritizing patient reality) and scientific research (seeking objective truth).

Themes in Comments

In the YouTube comments of **“**Multiple Orgasms are Not REAL?!”, many commenters grapple with the question of who has the right to define a phenomenon as intimate as an orgasm: the scientist with her instruments in the laboratory, or the individual with their sensations in the bedroom? This YouTube comment section serves as a case study in the public understanding and contestation of science, revealing how laypeople engage with, critique, and ultimately seek to reshape scientific knowledge to better reflect their own experiences.

1.       Questioning scientific methodology:

The commenters overall see personal, embodied phenomenological knowledge as superior to Prause’s work (institutional, “objective” science). Lived experience can often help identify methodological flaws in empirical work through perception of complex intraindividual and interindividual phenomena during their set of experiences. When phenomenological lived experience and scientific findings conflict, it usually means either the science is incomplete/flawed, the experiencer is incorrect in their experienced-based explanations, or there is a language barrier such that the research and experiencer are making claims about different phenomena under the same umbrella term.

Many commenters challenge Prause’s authority as a scientist to define and empirically describe what is occurring with aspects of female sexuality. The lay public performs its own epistemic boundary work (a social and pollical process of defining, negotiating, and policing different types of knowledge) to correct scientific expertise.

Several commentors critique the methodology, specifically its perceived lack of ecological validity, coming from an empirical standpoint, which is not phenomenological but good peer-review. Commenters repeatedly highlight the small sample size mentioned in the video as a fatal flaw, invalidating any conclusions drawn.

• “You conducted a survey on 24 women….so my own survey is more extensive than yours.”
• “Not sure 24 women is enough to prove anything… Haha”

The commenters are providing their own internal standards of rigor (e.g., the need for a statistically significant sample size) to challenge the authority of a specific scientific claim. Indeed, it can happen that Prause observed something of her California sample (where expanded orgasm typology is particularly prevalent) and did not represent women who actually have multiple orgasms as I have documented in my binary contraction analysis.

Beyond sample size, the laboratory environment itself is identified as a confounding variable that renders the findings artificial and untrustworthy. The core argument is that the clinical, observed setting is fundamentally incompatible with the authentic expression of sexuality.

• “In the lab it’s an experiment but when you do it like you enjoy it without overthinking about the outcome of the experiment it’s different.“
• “I would say trying to achieve multiples in a clinical laboratory setting might be what skewed the results.“

The lab to many commentors is an intrusive and sterile environment. These comments also pinpoint the observer effect, the idea that the measurement alters the phenomenon being measured, influences the extent to which research findings can be generalized to real-world settings (also mentioned by Levin 1985).

While the presentation of the reflex should not be indistinguishable, the ease in which one can reach multiple orgasms is often more difficult, except for maybe some medical fetishists. The length and intensity might also vary as noted by Levin (1985). Prause’s probe can also be used at home in nonclinical settings, which I have done myself, meaning the study can be replicated at home to see the difference, a potential future consideration for Prause. She could send them home with probes and Arduino sets at a cost of approximately $150 per person and get a variety of samples in the wild to compare to the in-lab session set.

2.       Medical Gaslighting:

The commenter’s critique accuses Prause of “medical gaslighting,” a term to describe when a healthcare provider or medical authority dismisses, minimizes, or invalidates a patient’s lived experience of their own body, often attributing physical symptoms to psychological causes. Using this term is a strategic move that reframes the debate around the feeling of being invalidated.

• “Um I’m not confused about it. It’s definitely happening. I feel like I’m being gaslit here.
• “discrediting and or limiting women’s pleasures (or gaslighting them into believing what they are experiencing isn’t other than what they actually know what they’re experiencing better than anyone else).”
• “jealous of it so is trying to prove it dosn’t happen“
• “they are trying to disprove multiple orgasms because they themselves haven’t experienced them“

Commenters assert experiential knowledge to rebut the implication that women are “confused” about their orgasms. This disagreement escalates from a factual dispute into an accusation of harm, where the scientist is seen not merely as incorrect, but as actively causing distress by denying their interpretations of their experience. This explicitly links the scientific definition to a history of dismissing women’s bodily knowledge, much of which has been correct (e.g., endometriosis, autoimmune diseases).

Invoking “medical gaslighting” repositions the scientist from an objective expert into a psychological abuser, and the commenter into a victim possessing higher moral authority. This reframing strategically inoculates their claims from scientific rebuttal, as any further correction is interpreted as additional gaslighting.

This illustrates how broader social narratives (e.g., MeToo, medical critiques) are mobilized to contest scientific authority on personal experience, dragging it into a moral arena where empirical merit is secondary. Furthermore, the “orgasm imperative” assigns orgasm supreme value over other pleasures. To label an experience “not an orgasm” is to devalue it, raising anxieties about sexual dysfunction, Freudian frigidity, or being judged as inadequate, thus intensifying the personal stakes of the scientific definition.

3.       The Androcentric Critique:

The commenter’s third critique argues that the scientific definition of orgasm is fundamentally androcentric, modeling a singular climax marked by pelvic contractions that serve as a propulsion mechanism for male ejaculation as orgasm.

• “Sex is so androcentric that we even define female orgasms using male criteria.“
• “I think part of this issue is defining orgasm as a climax, which is very male-centric… since masculine orgasm is so closely tied to ejaculation we consider the two interchangeable.“

Commenters argue that the scientific model of orgasm is flawed because it fails to account for what they see as fundamental physiological differences between men and women. They contrast a perceived male model (linear and finite, ending in a refractory period) with a perceived female model, which they describe as pluralistic and wave-like. In doing so, they rely on a popular but incorrect framework that assumes female experience is inherently more varied and non-linear. This is despite evidence, such as a 2009 study by Humphries & Cioe, which found many women experience a “male-like” climax with a similar refractory period. The commenters’ conclusion, which calls for a paradigm shift to recognize distinct female physiology, demonstrates a public effort to apply a feminist critique to science.

However, this critique is itself based on outdated stereotypes. It ignores the fact that many men report non-linear experiences (e.g., through prostate stimulation or multi-orgasmic practices), and research shows that even the typical male model is dynamic and complex (Blyuss & Kyrychko, 2023). By focusing rigidly on gender, the commenters overlook several key points: male practices that align with so-called “female” orgasm patterns, the general diversity of male sexual experience often absent from literature, and the fundamental physiological similarities in how both male and female bodies reach an orgasm threshold, as described by Prause.

Despite feminist critiques, Prause’s model is grounded in physiological observation of both sexes and notes their fundamental similarities. The byproduct hypothesis of the female orgasm also supports the idea that the underlying biological models are very similar. Furthermore, this view of similarity is not anti-feminist; some feminists, like Dr. Carol Queen and Hannah Frith, have argued that biological similarity is a grounds for sexual equality, countering earlier ideas of male or female sexual superiority. A more accurate approach, therefore, would be to focus on individual variation rather than reinforcing reductive gendered categories.

4.       The Anecdote as Irrefutable Data

The comment section’s knowledge system is built on personal stories, which it treats as factual evidence. This directly opposes mainstream science’s focus on objective data and reflects how online communities often form beliefs based on shared testimony.

Throughout the comment section, personal testimonies are framed as empirical data points, offered as direct evidence to support or refute a claim. They often begin with an assertion of identity, which serves to establish the speaker’s authority to testify.

·        “I am a woman and I experience this exact thing regularly during sex.“

• “As a male who has no difficulty knowing what is occurring…“
• “Multiple orgasms are not necessary to have a good sexual experience but I have had them for years And I’m over seventy Same husband since nineteen years old.” (60 likes)

The community’s epistemology of testimony is further revealed in how it evaluates and weighs different accounts. The credibility of a claim is judged not by its methodological rigor or statistical power, but by the perceived authenticity and social position of the testifier. The testimony of one commenter is granted immense epistemic weight not just because of its content, but because of its source: a 70-year-old woman in a continuous, fifty-plus-year marriage. This social context imbues her testimony with an authority that a younger, less experienced commenter might not possess. Similarly, the testimony of male partners is used as corroborating evidence, a form of support that strengthens the initial claim. Likewise, another commenter’s description of his wife’s experiences is presented as a careful observation, and it is validated by numerous other men reporting similar observations of their partners: “Yes, this is exactly how my late wife was…“) and (“True statement, my wife is the same.“). This reliance on testimony represents a departure from the epistemology of the science being discussed by Prause.

In general (philosophy of science is a large topic), scientific knowledge aims for objectivity and distance, seeking to eliminate the subjective biases of the observer. In contrast, the folk science of the comment section embraces subjectivity as the very source of its authority. The community collectively, if implicitly, decides that for a topic as intimate and personal as sexuality, lived experience is a more valid and trustworthy source of knowledge than a measurement taken in a laboratory. This reflects an anti-reductionist stance in social epistemology, which posits that testimony can be a basic and legitimate source of justification, not necessarily requiring independent, non-testimonial evidence for its acceptance. The comment section becomes a forum where the lived-in, first-person “I know” stands as a direct and powerful challenge to the detached, third-person “science says.”

5.       Improved Taxonomies of Pleasure

The commenters created their own taxonomy of orgasmic experiences that describe what they mean by orgasm which often contrasts with Prause’s definition. These taxonomies are not new, but are already discussed in scholarly works (e.g. Umit Sayin’s work), Cosmopolitan, and Pornhub. However, this is where we see the usefulness of such “types of orgasms” in practice and in response to a scientist hyper-focused on a particular response.

Faced with a monolithic scientific definition of orgasm—a reflex characterized by pelvic contractions—that does not align with their varied experiences, the commenters collaborate to build a more granular and experientially resonant model. Prause’s singular orgasm reflex doesn’t provide a nomenclature to discuss other responses and qualia that feel good and are categorized as orgasms. It is providing scientists other phenomenon to study rather than providing something that is counter to what Prause is saying. So there are not necessarily saying that Prause is incorrect, but that she should consider other phenomena.

6.       Gendered Accusations and Defenses:

The conflicts that erupt in the comments follow highly predictable, gendered patterns. A common pattern begins with male skepticism directed at a man’s account of his female partner’s multiple orgasms.

• “Your wife tells her friends that she can tell her husband anything and he’s foolish enough to believe it“
• “just because you can’t make that happen doesn’t mean that others can’t.“
• [Skeptics (men or Prause) are] “jealous of it”  
• “apparently you haven’t found one or you don’t know what to do to get one there…“

In this exchange, the ability to “give” a woman multiple orgasms becomes a marker of superior masculine skill and knowledge. Men who validate their partners’ experiences, like “The evidence is… Clear,” are not just sharing information; they are performing their status as competent, attentive, and successful lovers.

A different but related dynamic occurs when women challenge the female scientist. In these instances, male commenters often step in to defend the scientific authority, framing the women’s objections as emotional and subjective: “So you think someone who’s spent her life studying human sexuality scientifically knows less about a subject than people who’ve spent zero time studying that subject merely because the latter have described their subjective experiences…?” Here, the gendered trope of male rationality is pitted against female subjectivity.

The arguments are less about establishing objective fact and more about negotiating status, power, and trust within a heterosexual framework. For a man to boast of his partner’s multiple orgasms (“My wife and several past girlfriends will attest to having multiples. You’re welcome.“) is an act of self-validation. For a woman to assert her experience is an act of claiming sexual agency and resisting invalidation. The entire exchange functions as a social drama where commenters perform and defend their gendered identities and sexual competence.

7.       Community Formation and Knowledge Curation

Amidst the conflict, the comment section also serves as a site for community formation and solidarity. Users build alliances and a sense of shared identity by publicly validating one another’s experiences. Simple affirmations like “Agree” or “My thoughts exactly.” function as social glue, reinforcing the validity of the experiential claims and creating a sense of a collective “we” who understands the “truth” that the scientist misses.

• “It’s crazy that more people don’t talk about the book Celestial Soulmate by Lentlish. It really helped me with understanding girls better” (245 likes)
• “Finding the Winner Effect Girlfriend Game by Kyrie Dotts” (220 likes)
• “‘Break her Bed’ by Jake Black” (100+ likes)

While these could certainly be AI bot posts, the extraordinary popularity of these recommendations, indicated by “like” counts that far exceed those of most other comments, is highly significant. It suggests that a primary motivation for many participants in this discourse is the search for actionable, prescriptive knowledge, rather than the purely descriptive knowledge offered by academic science.

The community is not just interested in understanding the physiology of orgasm; they are seeking practical techniques and frameworks to improve their own and their partners’ sexual lives. The self-help books, with their promise of “changing your life,” offer a pragmatic pathway to achieving desired outcomes.

8.       The “Orgasm Gap” and the Politics of Pleasure

Another topic mentioned in the comments was the “orgasm gap”: the well-documented disparity in orgasm frequency between men and women in heterosexual encounters. The political dimension is evident in the calls for more and better research into female sexuality.

• “The level of study in female sexuality is pathetic. We need more, much more.“
• “Let’s work on closing the O gap first, then worry about ‘multiples’“

The intensity of the debate is fueled by this sense of historical neglect of female experiences by many males historically. The commenters are not merely reacting to the specific claims made in a single YouTube video; they are reacting to what they perceive as centuries of scientific and cultural indifference to, or misunderstanding of, female pleasure.

Their engagement is a form of activism. By challenging the expert, sharing their stories, building their own taxonomies, and demanding better science, they are participating in a political project to center female sexual experience and to claim for it the seriousness and legitimacy it has long been denied. The comment section becomes a public forum for closing the orgasm gap not only in the bedroom, but also in the laboratory, in the media, and in the public square. It is a demand that female pleasure be seen, heard, and taken seriously, on its own terms.

Conclusion

Effective public engagement requires a paradigm shift. Scientists, educators, and communicators must recognize digital forums like YouTube comment sections not as zones of ignorance to be educated, but as complex epistemic spaces where legitimate concerns about the limits and meanings of science are being voiced. The paper shows that great analysis can come from something as simple as a YouTube video and the comment section, and I did it without powerful institutions like grants, university bosses, IRB, and any of that institutional bullshit. This is an area where independent researchers can step in and do what institution researcher fails to do because of their ethical, institutional, habitual, or creative limitations.

Engagement must move beyond mere dissemination to genuine dialogue. This involves acknowledging the epistemic value of lived experience, understanding the powerful cultural frameworks that shape public interpretation of scientific claims, and being prepared to discuss not just the findings of science, but its boundaries, its potential biases, and its role within the broader human experience.

If Prause considers publishing this work, it would be beneficial to align findings with the lay taxonomy of things called orgasm rather than just say they “did not have orgasm” given the loaded meaning behind that. It would be beneficial to say that they “did not exhibit the urogenital reflex but describe their response as a squirting orgasm, mini orgasm, or A-spot orgasm.”

Thus, the question can evolve from the skeptical “Are multiple orgasms real?” to a more precise and productive “What are the physiological and neurohormonal characteristics of subjectively reported multiple peak pleasure events, and how do they differ from the characteristics of a single, contraction-based climax traditionally called orgasm?” “How many times can the urogenital reflex be evoked?”, which looks for a reflex rather than the definitionally varied orgasm. Because language is fluid and ends up in redefinition games, in the future, as has occurred in nonhuman studies, causative neural network mappings for qualia should replace language as neuroscience progresses and safe mapping techniques for humans are created.

As a researcher who is developing novel approaches to incorporate and synthesize subjective perception and multi-modality scientific inquiry, I see value into the critique of the commenters. It is unproductive to argue but rather to creatively consider how to present both data modalities well inside a work. They are ultimately different presentations of our system and should be represented. Both perspectives should be presented, and it is excellent to have YouTube with such open commentary.

References:

Blyuss, K. B., & Kyrychko, Y. N. (2023). Sex, ducks, and rock “n” roll: Mathematical model of sexual response. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 33(4).

Bohlen, J. G., Held, J. P., Sanderson, M. O., & Ahlgren, A. (1982). The female orgasm: pelvic contractions. Archives of sexual behavior, 11(5), 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541570

Humphries, A. K., & Cioe, J. (2009). Reconsidering the refractory period: An exploratory study of women’s post-orgasmic experiences. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 18(3), 127.

Levin, R. J., & Wagner, G. (1985). Orgasm in women in the laboratory—quantitative studies on duration, intensity, latency, and vaginal blood flow. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14(5), 439-449.

MultipleOs. (2024). Multiple Evocations of the Urogenital Reflex in Males and Females as a Gold-Standard Correlate for Multiple Orgasms: A Video-Based Binary Contraction Analysis. Retrieved from https://www.reddit.com/r/MultipleOs/comments/1g58zkl/multiple_evocations_of_the_urogenital_reflex_in/

Pfaus, J., Hartmann, D., Wood, E., Wang, J., & Klinger, E. (2022). Women’s Orgasms Determined by Autodetection of Pelvic Floor Muscle Contractions Using the Lioness “Smart” Vibrator. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 19(8), S2-S3.