Ever since the Freudians discussed the idea of multiple types of orgasm, media has vastly expanded the orgasm list (Super O, g-spot, p-spot, full body, energy, types of contractions, emotional, blended, etc.). Starting with the feminist clitoral/vaginal discussion in reaction to psychoanalytic tradition, people have debated whether there was one type of orgasm had in multiple ways or if there are multiple types of orgasms. To date, no one has outlined the underlying logic behind the “type of orgasm” debate. This post outlines the underlying set theoretic logic behind definitions of orgasm.

Visualizing through Set Theory Logic Diagrams

Masters and Johnson made orgasm a set of its own by making the orgasm phase.

People have argued over whether the orgasmic contractions are the orgasm or if it is pleasurable sensation if there needs to be both. Others believed that orgasm must involve ejaculation in males. For the people who emphasize pelvic floor contractions, the following subtypes of orgasms emerge.

Joseph Bohlen and Nicole Prause place orgasm in the set of reflex.

The subtypes of orgasm in the reflex set would be where Lioness and Bohlen et al.’s place their proposed contraction profile types for the reflex.

Barry Komisaruk and Beverly Whipple place reflexes (clitoral/penile orgasm, sneeze, yawn) in the orgasm set. They also add emission typologies like squirting and sensations (genital, foot, vaginal, cervical, etc.) in the set of orgasm, along with the orgasm reflex as a set member under orgasm. This is unusual because sneeze and yawning are normally considered reflexes, but here they are placed as members of the orgasm set.

In this Daoist Mantak Chia’s view, the universe of all relevant phenomena is orgasm and the flow/cultivation of orgasmic energy, or chi. So everything, then, is in the orgasm set.

A Better Definition Is Not the Solution

A mistake is trying to produce a better definition of orgasm. Many sex researchers admit there is no single definition, yet few acknowledge that the problem lies in the language system itself. Because there lack a near 1-to-1 correspondence between complex neurodynamic and language, language is the wrong primary system for differentiation. A mistake many sex researcher make is trying to produce a better definition of orgasm. Many sex researchers admit there is no single definition, yet few acknowledge that the problem lies in the language system itself.

Because orgasm has historically referred to too many physiological, experiential, energetic, emotional, and vitalistic phenomena, the term has become too vague for precise science and should be replaced with anatomically grounded, disambiguation-able definitions. In set-theoretic terms, language and physiology form a many-to-many relationship rather than a clean partition. For instance, orgasm as a rhythm burst contraction reflex can be a term such as Onuf’s climax, which is anatomically grounded in district network behavior in the Onuf’s nucleus.

The debate over “types of orgasms,” then, is not about discovering the correct definition of orgasm, but about deciding which dimensions of physiology, sensation, reflexivity, emotion, energy, and experience are important enough to organize together under the same conceptual set.