Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Relationship between orgasm experience and sexual excitation: validation of the model of the subjective orgasm experience

Abstract

The aim of this study was to provide validity evidence of the Model of the Subjective Orgasm Experience (MSOE) associating its components with different types of sexual excitation. A total of 96 participants (48 men and 48 women) performed an experimental laboratory task, in which neutral and erotic content films were presented while the genital response was registered. After exposure to sexual stimulus presentation, participants reported their subjective sexual arousal. In addition, four dimensions (affective, sensory, intimacy, and rewards) of the subjective orgasm experience and the individual propensity for sexual excitation were assessed. Results showed that, in men, the affective, sensory, and rewards dimensions of the orgasm experience significantly correlated with the propensity for becoming sexually excited, and the intimacy dimension correlated with the genital response. In women, the sensory dimension of the orgasm experience positively correlated with the subjective sexual arousal. Types of sexual excitation which previously correlated with the orgasm experience were able to predict its four dimensions. The validation of the MSOE provides a more delimited explanation of the psychological experience of orgasm applicable to both sexes. It is an adequate model for both clinical and research purposes.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Garcia JR, Lloyd EA, Wallen K, Fisher HE. Variation in orgasm occurrence by sexual orientation in a sample of U.S. singles. J Sex Med. 2014;11:2645–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12669.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Uribe JF, Quintero MT, Gómez MG. Orgasmo femenino: definición y fingimiento. Urol Colomb. 2015;24(1):19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uroco.2015.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Arcos-Romero AI, Sierra JC. Revisión sistemática sobre la experiencia subjetiva del orgasmo [Systematic review of the subjective experience of orgasm]. Rev Int Androl. 2018;16(2):75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.androl.2017.09.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Mah K, Binik YM. The nature of human orgasm: a critical review of major trends. Clin Psychol Rev. 2001;21:823–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(00)00069-6.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Arcos-Romero AI, Moyano N, Sierra JC. Psychometric properties of the orgasm rating scale (ORS) in context of sexual relationship in a Spanish sample. J Sex Med. 2018;15:741–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.03.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Rosen RC, Beck JG. Patterns of sexual arousal: psychophysiological processes and clinical applications. New York: Guilford; 1988.

  7. 7.

    Sierra JC, Arcos-Romero AI, Granados R, Sánchez-Fuentes MM, Calvillo C, Moyano N. Escalas de Valoración de Excitación Sexual y Valoración de Sensaciones Genitales: propiedades psicométricas en muestras españolas. [Ratings of Sexual Arousal and Ratings of Genial Sensations: Psychometric properties in Spanish sample]. Rev Int Androl. 2017;15(3):99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.androl.2016.10.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Bancroft J, Janssen E. The dual control model of male sexual response: a theoretical approach to centrally mediated erectile dysfunction. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2000;24(5):571–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7634(00)00024-5.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Granados MR, Salinas JM, Sierra JC. Spanish version of the sexual excitation/sexual inhibition inventory for women: factorial structure, reliability and validity evidences. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2017;17(1):65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2016.09.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Janssen E, Bancroft J. The dual control model: The role of sexual inhibition and excitation in sexual arousal and behavior. In Janssen E (ed). The psychophysiology of sex. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press: 2007, p. 197–222.

  11. 11.

    Sierra JC, Álvarez-Muelas A, Granados R, Arcos-Romero AI, Calvillo C, Torres-Obregón R. Relación entre la excitación sexual subjetiva y la respuesta genital: diferencias entre hombres y mujeres. [Connection between subjective sexual arousal and genital response: differences between men and women]. Rev Int Androl. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.androl.2017.12.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Handy AB, Stanton AM, Meston CM. Understanding women’s subjective sexual arousal within the laboratory: Definition, measurement, and manipulation. Sex Med Rev. 2018;6:201–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2017.11.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Paterson L, Jin ES, Amsel R, Binik YM. Gender similarities and differences in sexual arousal, desire, and orgasmic pleasure in the laboratory. J Sex Res. 2014;51(7):801–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.867922.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Stoléru S, Fonteille V, Cornélis C, Joyal C, Moulier V. Functional neuroimaging studies of sexual arousal and orgasm in healthy men and women: a review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2012;36(6):1481–1509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.03.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Brody S, Klapilova K, Krejčová L. More frequent vaginal orgasm is associated with experiencing greater excitement from deep vaginal stimulation. J Sex Med. 2013;10(7):1730–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12153.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Brody S. Intercourse orgasm consistency, concordance of women’s genital and subjective sexual arousal, and erotic stimulus presentation sequence. J Sex Marital Ther. 2007;33(1):31–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926230600998458.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Brody S, Laan E, Van Lunsen RH. Concordance between women s physiological and subjective sexual arousal is associated with consistency of orgasm during intercourse but not other sexual behaviour. J Sex Marital Ther. 2003;29(1):15–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/713847101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Mah K, Binik YM. Do all orgasms feel alike? Evaluating a two‐dimensional model of the orgasm experience across gender and sexual context. J Sex Res. 2002;39(2):104–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Carpenter DL, Janssen E, Graham CA, Vorst H, Wicherts J. The sexual inhibition/sexual excitation scales-short form (SIS/SES-SF). In Fisher TD, Davis CM, Yarber WL, Davis SL (eds). Handbook of sexuality-related measuares. London, UK: Routledge; 2011, p. 236–39.

  20. 20.

    Moyano N, Sierra JC. Validación de las escalas de inhibición sexual/ excitación sexual-forma breve (SIS/SES-SF). [Validation of the Sexual Inhibition/Sexual Excitation Scales-Short Form (SIS/SES-SF)]. Ter Psicol. 2014;32(2):87–100. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-48082014000200002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Sierra JC, De la Rosa MD, Granados R, Calvillo C, Arcos-Romero AI, Sánchez-Fuentes MM et al. Evidencias de validez de la versión española de las Sexual Inhibition/Sexual Excitation Scales-Short Form (SIS/SES-SF). [Validity evidences of the Spanish version of the Sexual Inhibition/Sexual Excitation Scales-Short Form (SIS/SES-SF)]. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación – e Avaliação Psicológica. 2018. https://doi.org/10.21865/RIDEP50.1.14

  22. 22.

    Mosher DL. Multiple indicators of subjective sexual arousal. In Fisher TD, Davis CM, Yarber WL, Davis SL (eds). Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures. London, UK: Routledge, 2011, p. 59–61.

  23. 23.

    Janssen E, Vissenberg M, Visser S, Everaerd W. An in vivo comparison of two circumferential penile strain gauges: the introduction of a new calibration method. Psychophysiology. 1997;34(6):717–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1997.tb02147.x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Zuckerman M. Physiological measures of sexual arousal in the human. Psychol Bull. 1971;75:297–329.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Laan E, Everaerd W, Evers A. Assessment of female sexual arousal: response specificity and construct validity. Psychophysiology . 1995;32:476–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1995.tb02099.x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Sintchak G, Geer JH. A vaginal plethysmograph system. Psychophysiology. 1975;12(1):113–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1975.tb03074.x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Suschinsky KD, Lalumiére ML, Chivers ML. Sex differences in patterns of genital arousal: Measurement artifact or true phenomenon? Arch Sex Behav. 2009;38:559–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9339-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Sierra JC, Granados R, Sánchez-Fuentes MM, Moyano N, López C. Activación sexual ante estímulos sexuales visuales: Comparación entre hombres y mujeres. [Sexual activation during exposure to visual sexual stimuli: Comparison between men and women]. Poster presentation in: XXXV Congreso Interamericano de Psicología, (Lima, Perú, 13–16 July 2015).

  29. 29.

    Graham CA, Sanders SA, Milhausen RR, McBride KR. Turning on and turning off: a focus group study of the factors that affect women’s sexual arousal. Arch Sex Behav. 2004;33:397–409. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ASEB.0000044737.62561.fd.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Dubrai S, Gérard MA, Beaulieu-Prévost D, Courtois F. Validation of a self-report questionnaire assessing the bodily and physiological sensations of orgasm. J Sex Med. 2017;14:255–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.12.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Salisbury CM, Fisher WA. “Did you come?” A qualitative exploration of gender differences in beliefs, experiences, and concerns regarding female orgasm occurrence during heterosexual sexual interactions. J Sex Res. 2013;51:616–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.838934.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Meston CM, Rellini AH, McCall K. The sensitivity of continuous laboratory measures of physiological and subjective sexual arousal for diagnosing women with sexual arousal disorder. J Sex Med. 2010;7(2):938–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01548.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Arcos-Romero AI, Sierra JC. Factorial invariance, differential item functioning, and norms of the Orgasm Rating Scale. Int J Clin Health Psychol (in press).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan Carlos Sierra.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Note: This research is part of the Doctoral Thesis of the first author. Psychology Doctoral Program (B13 56 1; RD 99/2011).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arcos-Romero, A., Granados, R. & Sierra, J.C. Relationship between orgasm experience and sexual excitation: validation of the model of the subjective orgasm experience. Int J Impot Res 31, 282–287 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-018-0095-6

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links