The Journal of Sex Research

ISSN: 0022-4499 (Print) 1559-8519 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20

Female Multiple Orgasm: An Exploratory Internet-

Based Survey

M. Gérard, M. Berry, R. A. Shtarkshall, R. Amsel & Y. M. Binik

To cite this article: M. Gérard, M. Berry, R. A. Shtarkshall, R. Amsel & Y. M. Binik (2020): Female
Multiple Orgasm: An Exploratory Internet-Based Survey, The Journal of Sex Research, DOI:
10.1080/00224499.2020.1743224

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2020.1743224

Published online: 17 Apr 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjsr20
THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2020.1743224

Female Multiple Orgasm: An Exploratory Internet-Based Survey

M. Gérarda, M. Berryb, R. A. Shtarkshallc, R. Amseld, and Y. M. Binikd
a
Department of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal; bMcGill University Health Center; cBraun School of Public Health and Community
Medicine of the Hebrew University and Hadassah; dDepartment of Psychology, McGill University

ABSTRACT
Women’s multiorgasmic capacity has long been mentioned in the human sexuality literature. However, due
in part to the conceptual vagueness surrounding this phenomenon, few empirical studies have focused on
this topic, and our scientific knowledge is currently limited. This exploratory research is mainly aimed at
providing a much-needed assessment of the profiles of women reporting multiorgasmic experiences. For
this study, 419 sexually diverse women ages 18 through 69 who identified as multiorgasmic completed an
online survey assessing variables pertaining to sociodemographic background, context and characteristics of
a recent/typical multiorgasmic experience, relationships between multiple orgasm and sexual/nonsexual
aspects of life, and sexual and orgasmic history. Data reduction analyses using principal component analysis
pointed out that 15 variables of interest were distributed across six components, accounting for a large
proportion of the sample’s variance. A k-means cluster analysis further revealed that four distinct groups of
women could be parsed out. These four groups could be differentiated by three sets of variables—sexual
motivation, sexual history, and multiple orgasm characteristics—suggesting that female multiple orgasm is
not a unitary phenomenon. This research provides to date the most comprehensive picture of female
multiple orgasm and helps refine our conceptual understanding.

Despite a plethora of anecdotal evidence, much media enthusiasm,
and the availability of research reports for almost 90 years (Clark,
1946; Davis, 1929; Dickinson & Beam, 1931; Hamilton, 1929;
Masters & Johnson, 1966), little is known about women’s multiple
orgasm experiences. Moreover, there is little consensus on what
actually constitutes a multiorgasmic episode. Ever since Kinsey
et al.’s (1953) survey reported that 14% of women experienced
multiple orgasm through intercourse, and Masters and Johnson’s
(1966) psychophysiological work confirmed the physiological pos-
sibility of multiple orgasm, scientific investigations specifically
dedicated to female multiple orgasm have been rather scarce
(Amberson & Hoon, 1985; Bohlen et al., 1982; Darling et al.,
1991; Shtarkshall et al., 2008). As a result, we still have no clear
understanding of the distinct characteristics of multiple orgasm
and whether it is a unitary phenomenon.
Definitional challenges can account, in part, for the paucity of
research available on the topic. Despite recent attempts, orgasm
has been a difficult concept to operationalize (Mah & Binik, 2001;
McMahon et al., 2004; Meston et al., 2004; Levine, 2004). In
particular, the nature of female orgasm has been the subject of
much debate over the past century, with multiple typologies—
coital and extracoital orgasms, vaginal and clitoral orgasms, mixed
orgasms— competing to best characterize this experience
(Clifford, 1978; Crepault, 1981; S. Fisher, 1973; Sholty et al.,
1984; Singer & Singer, 1972). So far little evidence supports any
one of these typologies, and with so much difficulty in defining
a single orgasm it is not surprising that there is little consensus
about multiple orgasm.
Overall, the only point of agreement among the proposed
definitions of multiple orgasm seems to be numerical: women
who report having multiple orgasms experience more than one
orgasm in succession in one sexual session. The specifics of what
“in succession” means remains open to interpretation.
Influential conceptualizations of multiple orgasm have typically
lacked timing information, such that the time period between
orgasmic events has rarely been clearly specified (Hite, 1976;
Kinsey et al., 1953; Masters & Johnson, 1966; Sherfey, 1966).
Kinsey et al.’s (1998) definition of multiple orgasm makes it
impossible to accurately determine a time period between the
various orgasms of a multiorgasmic episode; they noted that
orgasms “may come in rapid succession, with lapses of only
a minute or two, or in some instances of only a few seconds
between orgasm” (p. 626).
Alternatively, Masters and Johnson (1966) suggested classi-
fying female multiple orgasm into two types: “repeated” (mul-
tiple) and “sequential” (status orgasmus). Accordingly,
repeated orgasms refer to a series of orgasms separated by
rest periods during which sexual arousal does not drop
below plateau level, while sequential orgasms refer to “either
a series of rapidly recurrent orgasmic experiences between
which no recordable plateau-phase levels can be demonstrated,
or a single, long-continued orgasmic episode … [which] may
last from 20 to more than 60 seconds” (p. 131). The duration
between the “rest periods” of the repeated orgasms remains
unaddressed, while the timing of the sequential orgasm is also
elusive.

CONTACT M. Gérard marina.gerard@mail.mcgill.ca Department of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal, CP 8888, Succursale Centre-ville, Montréal,
Québec H3C 3P8, Canada
© 2020 The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality
2 M. GÉRARD ET AL.
As far as Sherfey’s (1973) definition is concerned, it is
devoid of timing parameters altogether. She focused on the
physiology and the strength of the sexual response: “Each
orgasm is followed promptly by refilling of the venous erectile
chambers, distension creates engorgement and edema, which
creates more tissue tension … consequently, the more
orgasms a woman has, the stronger they become” (p. 112).
A decade later, informed by Masters and Johnson’s termi-
nology, Hite (1976) also distinguished sequential orgasms and
multiple orgasms based on the presence or absence of breaks
between the orgasms of a series. According to her description,
sequential orgasms involve a necessary pause of unspecified
duration between orgasms, while multiple orgasms are
defined as continued orgasms with uninterrupted stimulation.
While Hite and Masters and Johnson seem to agree that
multiple orgasm is not a unitary phenomenon, as both divide
it into two types, their terminology is confusing as they both
use the term sequential to refer to different multiorgasmic
experiences. In fact, Hite’s sequential orgasms are concep-
tually different from Masters and Johnson’s sequential
orgasms, thereby capturing the ambiguity of the literature
and highlighting the conceptual vagueness still surrounding
the meaning of what “in succession” means.
The only recent multiple orgasm research to specify timing
parameters is that of Haning and colleagues (2008): “Two or
more orgasms with a period of 30 seconds or more between
orgasms and continuing sexual tension in between the
orgasms” (p. 331). Haning and colleagues, however, failed to
clarify whether “continuing sexual tension” meant continued
stimulation, thereby leaving room for interpretation.
Accordingly, empirical research on female multiple orgasm
has been marked by methodological variations based on dif-
fering definitions (Amberson & Hoon, 1985; Darling et al.,
1991). These definitions varied according to the timing para-
meters of the orgasm sequence and the presence or absence of
continuous stimulation. This may have contributed to the
variations in reported prevalence rates. While nearly 50% of
Darling’s et al. (1991) sample were identified as multiorgasmic
based on the number of orgasms reported during a single
sexual episode, Clifford’s (1978) sample yielded a prevalence
rate of 30%, with multiple orgasm being defined as “more
than one orgasm in [an interval of only a few seconds up to
several minutes]” (p. 189).
Sampling and method variations may also account for
different findings among studies. The recent literature
includes single case reports (Bohlen et al., 1982; Campbell
et al., 1975; Shtarkshall et al., 2008), one experimental study
(N = 17) (Amberson & Hoon, 1985), one larger self-report
study limited to heterosexual nurses (N = 720) (Darling et al.,
1991), and two survey studies (N = 215; N = 100) whose main
focus was not multiple orgasm (Clifford, 1978; Haning et al.,
2008). Aside from suspected partner effects (Darling et al.,
1991; Haning et al., 2008; Shtarkshall et al., 2008) and a trend
reflecting the importance of clitoral stimulation (Amberson &
Hoon, 1985; Darling et al., 1991; Shtarkshall et al., 2008), this
literature is often unsystematic and elusive and rather suggests
that female multiple orgasm is largely idiosyncratic.
While these limited data have so far provided us with an
incomplete picture of female multiple orgasm, they have
started to shed light on promising avenues of investigation.
The literature appears to be consistent with regard to the
relationship between variety of sexual activity and multiple
orgasm. Multiorgasmic women tend to report a wider reper-
toire of sexual activities than women who do not experience
multiple orgasm (Darling et al., 1991; Shtarkshall et al.,
2008). This finding is in line with recent data showing that
women who engage in a variety of sexual acts are more
likely to frequently experience orgasm (Frederick et al.,
2018). The literature also seems to consistently highlight
the role of sexual fantasy in this phenomenon, as the multi-
orgasmic women surveyed reported a more frequent use of
it than their nonmultiorgasmic counterparts (Darling et al.,
1991; Shtarkshall et al., 2008).
Overall, multiorgasmic women report higher orgasm rates
through partnered sexual activities than single orgasmic women
(Darling et al., 1991). Further multiple orgasm data show that
respondents with a “good partner” report higher prevalence
rates (29.8%) of multiple orgasm as well (Haning et al., 2008).
Moreover, women who experience multiple orgasm through
partnered sex are more likely to reach their first orgasm of the
series before their partners (54.7%) compared to single orgasmic
women (35.6%) (Darling et al., 1991), thereby suggesting the
presence of partner effects on orgasmic pattern.
However, the literature is inconsistent with regard to sti-
mulation types associated with the experience of multiple
orgasm. Darling et al. (1991) revealed that multiorgasmic
women were more likely to report using vaginal penetration
with a finger and clitoral stimulation through thigh pressure
during masturbation than their single-orgasmic counterparts.
Yet a similar proportion of their participants reported experi-
encing multiple orgasm via masturbation (26.3%) or inter-
course alone (24.7%). Amberson and Hoon (1985) showed
that manual stimulation and vibratory stimulation of the
genitals seem equally effective for reaching multiple orgasm.
The data are also inconclusive in terms of pleasure and
orgasm sequence, with some reports suggesting an increase in
pleasure with successive orgasms (Bohlen et al., 1982; Hite, 1976;
Sherfey, 1973) and others reporting a lack thereof (Amberson &
Hoon, 1985). In line with these findings, Clifford’s (1978) data
suggest that few women experience increased pleasure (N = 4,
13.33%), while most (N = 25, 83.33%) report the successive
orgasms to be pleasurable yet not necessary.
Finally, studies addressing the potential association between
multiple orgasm and age of onset of sexual behaviors have also
yielded mixed findings (Bohlen et al., 1982; Darling et al., 1991).
One case study tracks the development of a multiorgasmic pattern
through biofeedback in a largely inexperienced 36-year-old
woman (Bohlen et al., 1982), thereby lending support to the theory
that sexual response patterns, including multiple orgasm, are
largely learned (Pfaus et al., 2001). Yet a larger-scale study suggests
that women who experience multiple orgasm tend to report earlier
ages of onset of sexual behaviors—including masturbation and
orgasm— than single-orgasmic women, as well as earlier aware-
ness of pleasurable genital sensations (Darling et al., 1991).
Interestingly, work by anthropologist Donald Marshall
(1971) had previously pointed out the commonness of women’s
multiple-orgasm pattern among specific societies, like Mangaian
Tribes, whose proactive approach toward sexual education set

them apart. Paradoxically, scientific data indicate that a small
fraction of women who experience multiple orgasm—only 10%
—do so consistently (Clifford, 1978). Moreover, these data sug-
gest that multiple orgasms seem to require mental concentration
and specific emotional conditions, particularly the first one of
the series (Shtarkshall et al., 2008).
In sum, although female multiple orgasm has been docu-
mented for more than 50 years, little is known about its
definitional parameters (sustained versus sequential multiple
orgasm, latency period between orgasms, etc.), contextual
circumstances (partnered versus solo activities, stimulation
types and quality), and psychosexual influences (onset of
sexual activity types, sexual fantasy, etc.). It is also currently
unknown whether women with the ability to experience mul-
tiple orgasm constitute a homogeneous group. As a result, this
exploratory study was designed with three specific goals in
mind. First, we aimed to assess and describe the typical
characteristics and history of women’s multiple-orgasm
experiences. Second, we intended to test the hypothesis that
there are specific subgroups of multiorgasmic women rather
than one single profile. Finally, we set out to compare multi-
ple-orgasm and psychosexual characteristics of participants
reporting a solo versus dyadic multiorgasmic context.
Method
Participants
The participants were adult, multiorgasmic females (N = 419)
recruited through advertisements posted online in North
America and in the Middle East (e.g., sexual health forums,
psychology forums and blogs, social media related to sexology
and sexual research, newspapers), as well as through pamph-
lets posted at various locations on the campus of a large,
urban North American university. Study advertisements soli-
cited women who were at least 18 years of age and who had
experienced and/or were still experiencing multiple orgasms,
during solo and/or partnered sexual activity. Recruitment
took place between February 2015 and August 2015. Each
participant enrolled in this study provided informed consent
as per the regulations of the university ethics committee.
A total of 1,351 women visited the survey platform.
However, 895 did not fully complete the survey (34% reten-
tion rate). Data from 37 participants were removed during
data cleaning, including the following: one respondent who
reported being male; 32 participants who either reported
more than a six-month delay since their most recent multiple
orgasm history (N = 27) or poor recollection of their most
recent multiple-orgasmic experience (N = 5); four participants
whose data were internally incongruent.
Survey Format and Content
The survey content focused on five subject areas: (1) partici-
pant sociodemographics; (2) most recent (or typical) multiple-
orgasm experience; (3) relationship between multiple orgasm
and nonsexual areas of the participant’s life; (4) sexual and
orgasmic history; and (5) current sex life and sexual beha-
viors. Survey format included a combination of Likert-type
THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH 3
scales, yes/no questions, and multiple-choice questions. In
addition, some questions allowed for the optional addition
of qualitative data pertaining to various aspects of partici-
pants’ multiorgasmic experiences. Unfortunately, preliminary
analyses based on the limited and fragmentary qualitative data
available yielded no information pertinent to this article; thus,
only quantitative data are reported here.
Sociodemographics
This first section included questions pertaining to age, sexual
orientation, marital and sexual relationship status, number of
children, religion (at birth and at the time of survey comple-
tion), geographic region, language, educational attainment,
employment status, and socioeconomic status.
Multiple-Orgasm Experience
Our working definition of multiple orgasm for this study was
“two or more orgasms in a single sexual session without
significant breaks.” This definition allowed us to capture the
likely wide-ranging experiences of women who fall into both
the “multiple orgasm” and the “sequential orgasm” categories,
as proposed by Hite (1976). When participants’ most recent
multiorgasmic experience was not typical, they were asked to
respond by referring to the most recent experience they
deemed typical. In this section, subjects were asked to report
on a number of variables, including the time (i.e., days/weeks)
since their last multiorgasmic experience, the number of
orgasms experienced in the multiorgasmic experience (either
estimated or exact), how well they remembered the experi-
ence, the context (i.e., partnered, solo, combined), duration of
the sexual episode, timing of first orgasm and second orgasm
(i.e., latency), and the types of physical stimulation that trig-
gered their orgasms. Using Likert-type scales, they were also
asked to provide scaled estimates of their arousal level
(1 = Not at all, 10 = Very high arousal), the sensation intensity
felt during orgasms (1 = Not intense at all, 10 = The most
intense orgasm in the session), as well as indices of any change
in arousal they may have experienced after the first, second,
and “most important” orgasm in the series.
Multiple Orgasm and Nonsexual Areas
With respect to the relationship between multiple orgasm and
nonsexual areas of life, participants were asked to rate the
overall importance of multiple orgasm in their lives (1 = Not
important, 10 = Essential) as well as in their sex lives. They
were also asked to rate the degree of influence that several
factors have over their multiorgasmic capacity (1 = Does not
increase, 10 = Very much increases): these included cognitive/
affective states, partner variables, and physical factors. Finally,
they were asked to report the degree of consistency of their
multiorgasmic capacity.
Sexual and Orgasmic History
Questions about sexual and orgasmic history examined the
following: age at first orgasm and first multiple-orgasm
experience, context (solo versus with a partner) and quality
of stimulation that induced first (ever) orgasm and first multi-
orgasmic experience, onset of masturbation and partnered
sexual activity, as well as any inhibiting factors that may
4 M. GÉRARD ET AL.
have prevented the occurrence of multiple orgasm in past
experiences. In addition, participants were asked to indicate
the highest number of orgasms ever experienced in a single
sexual session and to report on the importance of their multi-
orgasmic capacity in their lives. Using Likert-type scales,
women were also asked to report on a number of psychoso-
cial-sexual variables, including their self-rated level of adven-
turousness (1 = Not sexually adventurous at all, 10 = Very
sexually adventurous), disinhibition (1 = Very inhibited (shy),
10 = Very uninhibited (open)), and sexual interest (1 = Not at
all interested in sex, 10 = Very interested in sex) compared to
their peers.
Current Sex Life and Sexual Behaviors
Participants were asked to report on several aspects of their
sexual lives and behaviors, including the number of episodes
of masturbation and/or partnered sexual activity in the past
month, their level of sexual desire/drive in the past month
(1 = No desire/interest, 10 = Very high desire/interest), and the
frequency of their sexual thoughts/fantasies in the past month.
Procedure
Prospective participants were provided with a web link direct-
ing them to the study platform LimeSurvey hosted on the
university’s secure link server. Consistent with our attempt to
recruit an international and diverse group of participants and
given the various geolocations of our collaborators, the survey
was available in the following three languages: English,
Hebrew, and French. The website home page provided infor-
mation on the nature of the study and the eligibility require-
ments. Upon agreeing to the terms of the consent form
uploaded to the survey platform, participants were granted
access to the study content. Survey completion took approxi-
mately 25 minutes. Eligible participants who completed the
full survey were automatically entered in a prize drawing for
a 100 USD gift certificate for Amazon.com.
Data Analysis
All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Version 24
(IBM, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Sample size calculation
was determined based on the number of variables under study
and the planned data reduction analyses (Cohen, 1988;
Mundfrom et al., 2005). Given the larger-than-expected repre-
sentation of Israeli participants in our sample, we conducted
some preliminary analyses to assess the extent of this potential
source of bias. Results indicated that geolocation did not yield
a major influence on our findings.
We divided our sample into two groups based on the self-
reported context of the most recent/typical multiorgasmic
experience. The first group consisted of women who reported
experiencing their most recent/typical multiple orgasm by
themselves (i.e., alone) through self-stimulation, referred to
as the solo group hereafter (N = 151, 36%); the second group
was composed of women reporting both the physical presence
of a partner (N = 246, 59%) and a combined context of self-
and partnered stimulation (N = 22, 5%) during their
multiorgasmic experience, referred to as the dyadic group in
the text (N = 268, 64%).
Descriptive statistics, Pearson’s correlations with R square,
Pearson’s chi-square tests, and t tests were conducted on
participants’ sociodemographic background, as well as on
the contextual and physiological characteristics of their multi-
orgasmic experiences and their psychosexual data. These ana-
lyses are presented both conjointly and separately for the solo
and dyadic groups.
Both a principal component analysis (PCA) and a k-means
cluster analysis were conducted to determine the various
profiles of women experiencing multiple orgasm. As we
were investigating whether multiple-orgasm context (solo ver-
sus dyadic) could perhaps speak to distinct features of
women’s psychosocial history and translate into distinct mul-
tiple orgasm characteristics, one PCA for each group was
conducted. Fifteen variables of primary interest drawn from
three broad theoretical categories—sexual motivation, age of
onset of sexual activities, and multiorgasmic characteristics—
were identified from all surveyed variables based on their
conceptual relevance. This choice was informed by our multi-
ple-orgasm literature review and our reading of the larger
orgasm literature. The sexual motivation variables (sexual
adventurousness, interest, and disinhibition) were selected
based on Darling et al.’s (1991) hypotheses regarding multi-
orgasmic women’s propensity for higher sexual motivation.
The ages of onset variables were selected based on the contra-
dictory findings of Bohlen et al. (1982) and Darling et al.
(1991). Finally, the variables comprising the multiorgasmic
characteristics were selected based on the wide-ranging num-
bers of orgasms reported in the multiorgasm literature
(Amberson & Hoon, 1985; Haning et al., 2008; Shtarkshall
et al., 2008) and temporal considerations typically surveyed in
the general orgasm literature (i.e., orgasm latency and session
duration). These 15 variables (numeric scales) were included
in a PCA with varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization
conducted to identify the factors to be extracted and included
in the following k-means cluster analysis. A square root
transformation was performed to correct for positive skew
for two variables of interest: highest number of orgasms in
one multiple-orgasm session and “number of orgasms in most
recent multiple orgasm experience. A six-factor solution was
chosen to represent the data based on eigenvalues of 1 or
higher and factor loadings greater than .50 (Cohen, 1988).
As there were almost no significant differences between the
two groups of participants in terms of demographics, psycho-
sexual data, and PCA structure, the two groups were merged
together and a single k-means cluster analysis was conducted
rather than two separate ones. Standard scores (z scores) were
calculated for all 15 variables and a k-means cluster analysis
(MacQueen, 1967) was performed to group subjects according
to the previously identified six components. A four-cluster
solution was retained as it allowed for the best minimization
of the pooled within-cluster variation, while adequately dis-
tributing the sample across the four groups.
Finally, one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were
conducted to assess significant differences between the four
clusters on the six components and 15 variables of interest.

Tukey’s honest significant difference (HSD) post hoc tests
were then performed on all significant differences.
For all analyses, significance level was set at 0.05 and a beta
of 0.2 was confirmed (Cohen, 1992): Bonferroni corrections
were applied when necessary. Effect sizes were calculated for
all significant differences using partial eta squared (η2)
(Lakens, 2013).
Results
Sociodemographic Background of the Sample
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 69 years with a mean
age of 33.41 years old (SD = 10.59). Women’s first language
was predominantly English (N = 331, 73.6%). The majority
had received a university education (N = 312, 74.4%) and
were currently in the workforce earning at least an average
income. Our sample was sexually diverse, with a majority of
women who identified as heterosexual (N = 275, 65.6%) and
more than one-quarter who identified as bisexual (N = 109,
26%). Many participants reported being currently involved
with a romantic partner (N = 171, 40.8%). Finally, although
a large proportion of women indicated being raised in
a religious household (N = 340, 75.6%), an equally large
portion reported no current religious practice (N = 345,
76.7%). Except for dating status, χ2 (7, N = 419) = 48.88,
p < .01, and current religiosity (i.e., religious versus non-
religious), χ2 (1, N = 419) = 7.40, p = .007, sociodemo-
graphic characteristics did not differ across group
membership (i.e., solo versus dyadic). Women in the dyadic
group were more likely to be in a sexual relationship
(N = 252, 94%) and to observe religious practices (N = 74,
27.6%) than those in the solo group (N = 24, 15.8%, and
N = 108, 71%, respectively).
Sexual Histories
Data regarding the sample’s age of onset of sexual behaviors
(masturbation, orgasm, partnered sex, and intercourse) are
presented in Figure 1. Most women reported having engaged
in masturbation (M = 13.51, SD = 4.91) and experienced
Masturbation
FREQIENCY (%)
39.4
36
23.6
18.1
12.2
3.6
2.9
0.5
10-13
Figure 1. Sample’s age of onset of sexual behaviors.
THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH 5
orgasm (M = 14.15, SD = 4.69) before reaching 14 years old.
Nearly one-third reported having engaged in masturbation by
the age of 10 years old. For most of the sample, age of onset of
partnered sexual activities (i.e., dyadic sexual activities exclud-
ing intercourse) (M = 15.75, SD = 3.03) and intercourse
(M = 17.47, SD = 2.90) was reported to have occurred later.
A series of independent t tests with Bonferroni corrections
(α = .010) was conducted to assess potential differences in
terms of age of onset for sexual behaviors between the solo
and dyadic groups of women. No statistically significant dif-
ferences were found on mean age of onset for masturbation
(Msolo = 12.8, SD = 3.9; Mdyadic = 13.9, SD = 5.4, p = .013),
orgasm (Msolo = 13.8, SD = 4.7; Mdyadic = 14.4, SD = 4.7,
p = .185), partnered sex (Msolo = 15.8, SD = 3.2; Mdyadic = 15.7,
SD = 3.0, p = .784), and intercourse (Msolo = 17.6, SD = 3.2;
Mdyadic = 17.4, SD = 2.8, p = .490).
Nearly three-quarters of women (N = 310, 74%) reported
experiencing their first-ever orgasm during solo masturbation,
while 21.2% (N = 89) experienced their first orgasm during
genital stimulation with a partner (oral, manual, combined),
and 4.7% (N = 20) during some “other” form of stimulation
type. Comparative analyses revealed that women in the dyadic
group were more likely to have experienced their first-ever
orgasm with a partner than women in the solo group, χ2 (1,
N = 399) = 20.15, p < .001. Interestingly, incidental stimula-
tion (e.g., riding a bicycle) was listed by several women
reporting another form of stimulation than self- or partnered
stimulation as the source of their first-ever orgasm.
Multiple Orgasm History, Characteristics, and Correlates
Age of Onset and Context of First Multiple-Orgasm
Experience
Women’s mean age of onset for multiple orgasm (M = 19.17,
SD = 6.01) was significantly higher than that of single orgasm
(M = 14.15, SD = 4.69), t (418) = 20.47, p < .001. Comparative
analyses revealed that women in the solo group experienced
their first multiple orgasm significantly younger (M = 17.91,
SD = 5.89) than women in the dyadic group (M = 19.88,
SD = 5.97), t (417) = 3.27, p < .001. A relatively strong
correlation was found between age at first orgasm and age at
Orgasm Partnered sex Intercourse
63.7
50.6
38.4
25.5
21.2
17.2
13.4
8.6
3.1
2.9
2.6
2.4
2.1
2.1
1.7
5
1.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
14-17 18-21 22-25 26-29 30-34
AGE OF ONSET
6 M. GÉRARD ET AL.

Table 1. Degree of control over multiorgasmic experience.

Items Total % (N) Solo % (N) Dyadic % (N)
Perceived control over multiorgasmic capacity
Incomplete control 52.50 (220) 41.1 (330) 59 (309)
Complete control 47.5 (199) 58.9 (89) 41 (110)
Multiorgasmic capacity consistency
Unable to reach multiple orgasm at times 56.3 (236) 55 (83) 57.1 (153)
Able to reach multiple orgasm whenever desired 43.7 (183) 45 (68) 42.9 (115)

first multiple orgasm for women in the solo group (r = .66, Table 2. Typical timing parameters of women’s multiorgasmic experience.
p < .001, R2 = .44); a moderate correlation was found between Timing parameters Total % (N) Solo % (N) Dyadic % (N)
these two variables for women in the dyadic group (r = .54, Duration of sexual interaction
1–5 minutes 2.6 (11) 7.3 (11) –
p < .001, R2 = .29). 6–14 minutes 21 (88) 40.4 (61) 10 (27)
15–29 minutes 31 (130) 34.4 (52) 29.2 (78)
30–60 minutes 33 (138) 14.6 (22) 43.4 (116)
Overall Degree of Control Over Multiorgasmic Experience > 60 minutes 12.4 (52) 3.3 (5) 17.5 (47)
A priori, a similar proportion of women reported a sense of First orgasm latency
≤ 1 minute 6.4 (27) 10.6 (16) 4.1 (11)
complete control over their multiorgasmic experience 2–3 minutes 15 (63) 25.2 (38) 9.3 (25)
(N = 199, 47.5%) compared to a sense of incomplete control 4–5 minutes 20.5 (86) 23.9 (36) 18.6 (50)
6–10 minutes 21 (88) 21.9 (33) 20.5 (55)
(N = 220, 52.5%) (Table 1). However, comparative analyses 11–15 minutes 14.1 (59) 7.9 (12) 17.5 (47)
revealed that a significantly higher number of women in the 16–30 minutes 17.7 (74) 9.3 (14) 22.4 (60)
> 31 minutes 5.3 (22) 1.4 (2) 7.4 (20)
solo group reported complete control over their capacity to Second orgasm latency
reach multiple orgasm compared to the dyadic women, χ2 (1, ≤ 1 minute 34.6 (145) 45.7 (69) 28.4 (106)
384) = 9.90, p = .002. A strong positive correlation between 2–3 minutes 28.6 (120) 26.5 (40) 29.8 (80)
the highest number of orgasms ever attained in one session 4–5 minutes 18.9 (79) 15.2 (23) 20.9 (56)
6–10 minutes 11.0 (46) 8.6 (13) 12.3 (33)
and the number of orgasms reported in the most recent/ 11–15 minutes 3.1 (13) 2.6 (4) 3.4 (9)
typical experience was found for the solo group (r = .77, 16–30 minutes 3.8 (16) 1.3 (2) 5.2 (14)
> 31 minutes – – –
p < .001, R2 = .59), while a more modest correlation emerged
for the dyadic group (r = .49, p < .01, R2 = .24).

Highest Number of Orgasms During a Multiorgasmic
Experience
Women reported their highest number of orgasms varying
between two and more than 100. Two modal values were
found—five orgasms (N = 50, 12%) and 10 orgasms
(N = 50, 12%)—and no statistically significant difference
emerged on the log-transformed scores between the solo and
dyadic groups (p = .081). Surprisingly, women’s age was only
very weakly correlated with their highest reported number of
orgasms (r = .14, p = .006, R2 = .002). No significant correla-
tion emerged between women’s age at multiorgasmic onset
and their highest number of orgasms (p = .45).
Recent/Typical Multiple Orgasm Experience
Contextual Circumstances and Mood Correlates
As mentioned, most women experienced their most recent/
typical multiorgasmic episode with a partner (N = 268, 64%)
as opposed to alone (N = 151, 33%). Based on a 0 to 10 scale
(0 = Does not increase at all, 10 = Increases very much),
women endorsed being in a positive mood (M = 7.58,
SD = 2.43), feeling close to one’s partner (M = 7.44,
SD = 2.92), and feeling relaxed (M = 6.99, SD = 2.60) as the
three major factors likely to increase their propensity to
experience multiple orgasm. Conversely, women endorsed
being in a negative mood (M = 6.67, SD = 3.12), feeling
distant from one’s partner (M = 5.54, SD = 3.53), and taking
drugs (M = 4.76, SD = 3.67) as the three major factors likely to
decrease their propensity to experience multiple orgasm.
Session Duration, Orgasm Latency, and Break Duration
Timing data are presented in detail in Table 2. Overall duration
of the sexual episode showed great variability within the sample,
with dyadic women reporting a significantly longer session
duration (M = 37.87, SD = 17.16) than their solo counterparts
(M = 20.26, SD = 14.20), t (417) = − 11.29, p < .001. Dyadic
women were more likely to report a duration of 30 to 60 minutes,
while solo women were more likely to report a duration of six to
14 minutes. Only a weak positive correlation was found between
the number of orgasms experienced and session duration,
regardless of sexual context, r = .15, p = .002, R2 = .02.
Women’s first orgasm latency data yielded an average of
11.02 minutes (SD = 10.55), with the dyadic group reporting
a significantly longer orgasm latency period (M = 13.19,
SD = 11.45) compared to the solo group (M = 7.16, SD = 7.33),
t (417) = − 5.84, p < .001. A majority of women (N = 244, 58.2%)
maintained continuous physical stimulation after the first
orgasm of the series, while 20.5% of them (N = 86) put stimula-
tion to a halt for approximately one minute, and 12.6% (N = 53)
for approximately two (N = 34) to three (N = 19) minutes.
Overall, over 90% of the sample reported either no break in
stimulation or a break of one to three minutes at most. Only
nine participants (2.2%) reported taking a break of 10 minutes or
more. A higher proportion of women in the dyadic group
(64.6%) reported continuous physical stimulation compared to
those in the solo group (47%).
The second orgasm of the series was experienced after an
average of 3.65 minutes (SD = 4.00) of stimulation, thereby
displaying a significantly shorter orgasm latency than for the
first orgasm, t (418) = 14.19, p < .001. This second orgasm
 THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH 7

latency period was still significantly shorter for women in the
solo group (M = 2.83, SD = 3.31) compared to those in
a dyadic context (M = 4.11, SD = 4.29), t (417) = 3.41,
p < .001. Women who had reported no break in stimulation
between the first and second orgasm of the series also dis-
played a shorter second orgasm latency period (M = 3.10,
SD = 3.53) compared to those who reported taking a break
from stimulation (M = 4.46, SD = 4.47), t (417) = − 3.56,
p = .001. No significant differences emerged between these
two groups for the first orgasm latency period (p = .689).
Typical Number of Orgasms in a Series
A wide dispersion was found in the reported number of orgasms
(2 to 101), the modal and median values being three orgasms
(N = 140, 33.4%), regardless of dyadic or solo context, even
when controlling for age. Among the reasons listed for ending
on their last orgasm of the series, most women ranked “feeling
satisfied” (N = 260, 62.1%) as the primary factor involved.
Women in the dyadic group ranked “partner tired” (N = 91,
34%) and “feeling too tired” (N = 76, 28.4%) as the other two
main reasons involved; women in the solo group listed “feeling
too tired” (N = 47, 31.1%) and “feeling sensitive/sore” (N = 40,
26.5%). Of note, the item “less pleasurable” was more frequently
endorsed by women in the solo group (N = 27, 17.9%) than
women in the dyadic group (N = 13, 4.9%).
Stimulation Types
Figure 2 displays the stimulation types reported by women
to achieve their first orgasm of the series. Manual clitoral
stimulation was cited as the most frequently used stimula-
tion type among all stimulation types listed (N = 227,
54.2%), particularly for women in the solo group compared
to their dyadic counterparts, χ2 (1, 419) = 74.25, p < .001.
For women in the solo group, this was followed by (2)
vaginal penetration by a finger/dildo and (3) vibratory
stimulation. Comparatively, significantly fewer women in
the dyadic group reported using a vibrator to reach their
first orgasm of the series, χ2 (1, 419) = 10.44, p = .01.
Instead, these women reported relying on (2) oral clitoral
stimulation and (3) vaginal-penile penetration. In addition,
data showed that women in the dyadic group were more
likely to report breast stimulation than women in the solo
group, χ2 (1, 419) = 4.00, p = .046.
While women in the solo group reported a similar pattern
of stimulation types for their second orgasm— clitoral manual
stimulation, vaginal penetration with a finger/dildo, and
vibratory stimulation—a slight change in frequency of the
stimulation types was noted in the dyadic group. These
women reported (1) vaginal-penile penetration as the most
frequent stimulation type, followed by (2) manual clitoral
stimulation and (3) vaginal penetration by a finger/dildo.
Figure 3 displays the stimulation types reported by women
for their second orgasm of the series.
Subjective Arousal Levels
Although nearly half the women (N = 201, 47.9%) reported an
increase in sexual arousal following their first orgasm of the
series, one-quarter of them (N = 104, 24.8%) reported that

38.4
Manual clitoral stimulation 82.1
Vaginal penetration with finger/dildo 31.7
31.8
Vibrator use 4.1
13.2
35.1 Dyadic
Oral clitoral stimulation
Vaginal-penile penetration 34.7 Solo
4.9
Anal penetration with finger/dildo 3.3
Anal penile penetration 1.5
5.2
Breast stimulation 1.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

FREQUENCY OF USE (%)

Figure 2. Stimulation types reported for the first orgasm of the series.

38.1
Manual clitoral stimulation 82.1
Vaginal penetration with finger/dildo 28.7
4.1 29.8
Vibrator use 12.6
Oral clitoral stimulation 20.9
Dyadic
Vaginal-penile penetration 51.5
5.2 Solo
Anal penetration with finger/dildo 4
Anal penile penetration 3
4.1
Breast stimulation 1.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

FREQUENCY OF USE (%)

Figure 3. Stimulation types reported for the second orgasm of the series.
8 M. GÉRARD ET AL.
their arousal remained unchanged, and an even larger pro-
portion indicated (N = 114, 27.3%) instead a decrease in
arousal, χ2 (4, 419) = 9.96, p = .04. Women in the dyadic
group were significantly more likely to report an increase in
arousal following their first orgasm (N = 141, 52.7%) com-
pared to their solo counterparts (N = 60, 39.7%), who were
more likely to report a decrease in arousal instead.
Following the second orgasm of the series, most partici-
pants rated their arousal level as either diminished (N = 164,
39.1%) or unchanged (N = 151, 36%), with only one-quarter
of them continuing to report an increase in sexual arousal
(N = 104, 24.8%). Further comparative analyses showed that
women in the dyadic group continued to experience an
increase in arousal (N = 78, 29.1%) compared to women in
the solo group (N = 26, 17.2%). However, this difference was
not statistically significant, χ2 (4, 419) = 7.70, p = .103.
Orgasm Intensity Patterns
No significant main effect emerged in terms of orgasm inten-
sity score between the first (M = 7.51, SD = 1.78) and second
orgasm (M = 7.67, SD = 1.63) of the series, F (1, 417) = .838,
p = .361. However, a significant interaction of group member-
ship was found in orgasm intensity ratings, F (1, 417) = 11.64,
p = .01, partial η2 = .02, whereby women in the dyadic group
experienced an increase in intensity between the first
and second orgasm of the series (M1 = 7.48, M2 = 7.81),
while women in the solo group experienced a decrease (M1
= 7.56, M2 = 7.40).
Past and Current Sexual Motivations
With respect to self-rated levels of sexual interest, adventur-
ousness, and disinhibition during adolescence, women rated
themselves higher than their peers for sexual interest
(M = 7.3, SD = 2.4) but ranked themselves closer to their
peers on sexual adventurousness (M = 5.9, SD = 3.0) or sexual
disinhibition (M = 5.8, SD = 2.8). Women’s self-rated levels of
sexual interest, adventurousness, and disinhibition at the pre-
sent time were all significantly higher than their estimates
during adolescence, with a notable increase in self-rated
adventurousness (t (418) = − 13.19, p < .001) and disinhibi-
tion (t (418) = 15.41, p < .001). Overall, women continued to
rate themselves higher than their peers with respect to sexual
interest (M = 8.3, SD = 1.9), sexual adventurousness (M = 7.9,
SD = 2.0), and sexual disinhibition (M = 8.0, SD = 2.0).
Comparative analyses revealed that women in the solo and
dyadic groups reported similar levels of past sexual interest,
adventurousness, and disinhibition during adolescence, as
well as current levels of these same aspects. Reported levels
of desire/sex drive over the past month were also in the higher
end of the 10-point range (M = 7.30, SD = 2.2) for the whole
sample, regardless of group membership (p = .055). In addi-
tion, over half of women (N = 240, 57.3%) reported at least
weekly sexual thoughts, and no significant differences were
found between the dyadic and solo groups of women (p
= .335). Finally, women reported having engaged 8.4 times
(SD = 9.8) in solo masturbation over the past month on
average. Women in the dyadic group were more likely to
have engaged in masturbation at least once in the past
month, χ2 (1, N = 419) = 18.90, p < .001. On average,
women currently involved in a sexual relationship had
engaged at least eight times in partnered sex over the past
month (M = 8.78, SD = 7.67), with nearly 90% of them
reporting at least weekly partnered sex (four times per
month).
Identification of Subgroups of Women
Bivariate Correlations and Principal Components Analysis
Solo Group. Principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax
rotation and Kaiser normalization computed on the 15 variables
of interest yielded a six-component solution accounting for
77.41% of the solo group’s variance. The six components identi-
fied through the PCA were labeled as follows: Component#1:
general sexual motivation (15.74% of the variance);
Component#2: age of orgasm onset (14.81%); Component#3:
age of partnered sex onset (12.24%); Component #4: current
sexual drive (12.03%); Component#5: multiorgasmic capacity
(12.01%); Component#6: multiorgasmic timing parameters
(10.59%). The loadings of the variables that comprised the com-
ponents ranged from .675 to .939 for each variable.
Dyadic Group. A PCA conducted with similar parameters
yielded a five-component solution accounting for 68.97% of
the dyadic group’s variance. Given the similar distribution of
the variables among the five components, they were labeled
identically: Component#1: sexual motivation/drive (21.53%);
Component#2: age of orgasm onset (14.62%); Component#3:
age of partnered sex onset (11.97%); Component#4: multi-
orgasmic capacity (10.67%); Component#5: multiorgasmic
timing parameters (10.17%). The loadings of the variables
that comprised the components ranged from .493 to .914.
Table 3 displays the results of the two PCAs.
Entire Sample. Given the similarity of the component struc-
ture obtained for the two groups, a joint PCA combining both
solo and dyadic women was conducted. Results yielded a six-
component solution accounting for 74.87% of the sample’s
variance with a similar distribution of variables per compo-
nent. Table 4 displays the components distribution and their
respective factor variables and factor loadings.
Cluster Analysis
Upon conducting a k-means cluster analysis for the whole
sample, with all six components previously identified, a four-
cluster solution was retained. ANOVAs revealed the presence
of significant differences across the clusters for each of the 15
variables comprising the six components identified through
the PCA (Table 5).
The first cluster (Cluster 1) is composed of 78 participants
(76% from the dyadic group, 24% from the solo group) pre-
senting an average multiorgasmic capacity combined with
longer timing parameters, an average sexual motivation pro-
file, and a late psychosexual profile; the second cluster
(Cluster 2) is the largest group (N = 234, 62% dyadic, 38%
solo) and gathers participants presenting an average multi-
orgasmic profile, yet reporting the earliest ages of onset for
both solo and partnered sex acts, as well as the highest sexual
 THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH 9

Table 3. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation for the solo and dyadic groups.
Solo Group Clusters Dyadic Group Clusters
Variables of Interest 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5
Disinhibition .860 .710
Adventurousness .869 .678
Interest .761 .865
Age of orgasm onset .888 .894
Age of masturbation onset .833 .864
Age of multiple orgasm onset .805 .736
Age of partnered sex onset .923 .909
Age of intercourse onset .921 .914
Highest number of orgasms .936 .852
Number of orgasms in last session .939 .830
Monthly fantasy .725 .739
Monthly masturbation .777 .493
Monthly sex drive .675 .765
Session duration .842 .784
First orgasm latency .892 .865

Table 4. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation for the whole
sample. be married (43%) and the least likely to report being divorced
Clusters (3%). Women in Cluster 3 were also the only ones endorsing
Variables of Interest 1 2 3 4 5 6 the statement “I am very religious.” Conversely, Cluster 4
Disinhibition .855 women were more likely to report no current religious prac-
Adventurousness .827 tice (91.5%) compared to the other three groups.
Interest .803
Age of orgasm onset .900
Age of masturbation onset .853
Age of multiple orgasm onset .765 Discussion
Age of partnered sex onset .916
Age of intercourse onset .925 Relying on a large and diverse sample, the current study first
Highest number of orgasms .882
Number of orgasms in last session .872 set out to explore and describe various characteristics of
Monthly fantasy .720 female multiple orgasm (timing, context, sexual arousal, etc.)
Monthly masturbation .778 in the hope of refining our understanding of some crucial
Monthly sex drive .544
Session duration .817 features of this experience. Bearing in mind the ambiguity of
First orgasm latency .862 the existing literature, we also aimed at documenting women’s
psychosexual history to clarify its potential association with
their multiorgasmic experience. A second objective was to
drive scores of the sample; the third cluster (Cluster 3) isolate distinct profiles of women experiencing multiple
includes 95 participants (55% dyadic, 45% solo) displaying orgasm, which was achieved through data reduction and
the most modest multiorgasmic profile, as well as the lowest clustering analyses. Finally, we aimed at investigating poten-
sexual motivation and sexual drive of the sample; and the tial context effects—solo versus dyadic—to clarify the role of
fourth cluster (Cluster 4) is composed of the 12 participants the circumstances surrounding the experience of multiple
(92% dyadic, 8% solo) displaying particularly high multior- orgasm.
gasmic capacity and remarkable timing parameters, while also
reporting the second latest age of onset for multiple orgasm in
Multiple-Orgasm Characteristics
the sample.
Figure 4 displays the sociodemographic characteristics of Overall, our findings suggest that our Hite-based definition of
the clusters. An initial ANOVA indicated that the clusters multiple orgasm allowed us to capture the wide-ranging
significantly differed in terms of age (F (3, 415) = 9.93, experience of multiorgasmic women while helping us refine
p < .001, η2 = .07). Follow-up Tukey’s HSD post hoc tests our understanding of some of the unclear timing parameters.
revealed that women in the Cluster 2 group were younger A little over half of women (N = 244) who identify as multi-
(M = 31.41, SD = 9.48) than women in the Cluster 1 group orgasmic seem to fall into the “multiple orgasm” category as
(M = 38.15, SD = 11.53) and that women in Cluster 4 were defined by Hite, meaning these women report experiencing
older than those in Cluster 1 and Cluster 3 (M = 33.64, two or more orgasms continuously, without any break in
SD = 10.79). Chi-squares computed on the remaining of the stimulation. Our data suggest that these women were more
sociodemographic data also showed that the clusters varied likely to be engaged in a dyadic sexual interaction and to
only in terms of sexual orientation (χ2 (21, 418) = 42.45, display a shorter second orgasm latency period than their
p = .004), marital status (χ2 (15, 419) = 41.71, p < .001), and counterparts. The other group of participants (N = 175)
current religiosity (χ2 (12, 419) = 24.21, p = .019). More seem to fall into the “sequential orgasm” category; these
specifically, analyses showed that Cluster 2 women were less women reported a stimulation break of at least one minute
likely to identify as heterosexual (N = 58.5%) than women in following their first orgasm of the series. For nearly 80% of
other clusters and more likely to have never been married this group, the reported stimulation break ranged from one to
(N = 55%). Instead, women in Cluster 3 were more likely to three minutes, with very few women reporting breaks longer
10 M. GÉRARD ET AL.

Table 5. Profiles of female multiple orgasm.

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4
Variables N = 78 N = 234 N = 95 N = 12 F (Partial η2)
Age, M (SD) 38.15 (11.53) 31.41 (9.48) 33.64 (10.79) 39.50 (12.01) 9.92 (.07)
General sexual motivation, M (SD) 207.09**
Sexual disinhibition 8.41 (1.40) 8.85 (1.30) 5.65 (2.06) 8.58 (1.16) 102.84 (.43)**
Sexual interest 8.74 (1.26) 9.06 (1.05) 5.83 (2.01) 8.93 (1.24) 130.69 (.49)**
Sexual adventure 8.32 (1.37) 8.69 (1.33) 5.46 (2.08) 8.92 (1.38) 103.65 (.43)**
Solo orgasm onset 129.89**
Age at orgasm onset 19.59 (4.94) 12.18 (2.88) 14.37 (4.06) 15.50 (5.09) 75.45 (.35)**
Age at masturbation onset 19.04 (6.22) 11.38 (2.39) 14.20 (4.71) 13.67 (4.27) 73.17 (.35)**
Age at multiorgasmic onset 25.90 (4.19) 16.58 (4.78) 19.46 (5.24) 23.75 (6.73) 76.30 (.36)**
Partnered sex onset 27.66**
Age at partnered sex onset 16.90 (3.40) 14.71 (2.47) 17.19 (3.15) 17.00 (1.65) 24.04 (.15)**
Age at intercourse onset 18.37 (3.05) 16.50 (2.34) 19.00 (3.25) 18.33 (1.72) 23.74 (.15)**
Current sexual desire 59.75**
Monthly sexual drive 7.33 (1.93) 8.15 (1.70) 5.16 (1.94) 7.67 (2.43) 61.81 (.31)**
Monthly masturbation 5.92 (7.59) 10.39 (11.09) 5.55 (7.28) 8.83 (6.67) 7.83 (.05)**
Monthly sexual fantasy 7.34 (5.05) 10.26 (4.65) 4.22 (4.17) 7.75 (5.71) 39.24 (.22)**
Multiorgasmic capacity 239.20**
Number of orgasms in last multiorgasmic episode 4.73 (3.40) 4.29 (3.00) 3.45 (2.08) 37.50 (31.13) 128.18 (.48)**
Highest number of orgasms ever 11.69 (10.88) 10.68 (8.41) 8.52 (7.61) 70.58 (29.34) 146.02 (.51)**
Multiorgasmic timing parameters 5.21*
Duration of session (mns) 38.85(18.08) 31.17 (18.60) 24.87 (14.75) 43.33 (15.29) 10.85 (.07)**
First orgasm latency 14.29 (12.09) 10.17 (10.04) 10.81 (10.23) 7.90(8.73) 3.43 (.02)*
*p < .01; **p < .001.

100 Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4

91.5
83.0

90

79.0
79
75.0

80
67.0

64.0
70
FREQUENCY (%)

58.5

60
55

43.0

50
39.0

38.5

33.5

33.5

40
32.0

30.5

25.5
25.0

25.0

30
20.5
16.5
19

20
11.5

9.5
5.0

10
3.0
0.0

0.0

0
Heterosexual/Bisexual Same-sex Never married/Married Divorced Not religious

Figure 4. Sociodemographic characteristics of the clusters.

than five minutes (3.5%). Overall, our data suggest that for the
great majority of multiorgasmic women (N = 383), a lack of
“significant break” means a break of no more than three
minutes between the first and second orgasm of the series.
To our knowledge, this is the first study specifically collecting
stimulation break duration and orgasm latency data in a large
and diverse sample of women experiencing multiple orgasm.
Orgasm latency data revealed an interesting pattern of
findings. Data for the first orgasm of the series are consistent
with orgasm latency data recently obtained from single-
orgasmic women (Levine & Wagner, 1985; Rowland et al.,
2018). With the exclusion of a few outliers, multiorgasmic
women reported an average time of 11 minutes before experi-
encing their first orgasm of the series, which is identical to
that reported by Rowland et al’s. (2018) participants.
Similarly, women engaged in a dyadic context reported
a longer orgasm latency period (13.19 minutes) than women
engaged in self-stimulation (7.16 minutes), which is also in
line with Rowland and colleagues’ data (14.00 minutes and
8:00 minutes, respectively) and Levine and Wagner’s (1985)
earlier data. With regard to orgasm latency for the first
orgasm of the series, most multiorgasmic women seem to be
no different than single-orgasmic women. However, results
show that the second orgasm of the series occurs significantly
more quickly than the first one; within four minutes of sti-
mulation for women in a dyadic context and under four
minutes for those in a solo context. The sharp difference
between the first and second orgasm latency is consistent
with the notion of a heightened physiological reactivity in
multiorgasmic women (Masters & Johnson, 1966).

While the nature of our data cannot specifically shed light
on the maintenance of a plateau level of arousal following
each orgasm, as indicated by Masters and Johnson (1966), our
findings suggest that the context of the sexual interaction—
dyadic or solo—is an important variable to consider in the
assessment of multiorgasmic women’s arousal patterns. In
fact, participants’ subjective arousal levels seem moderated
by the context of their experience, with women in the dyadic
group consistently rating their arousal level as higher after
each successive orgasm compared with women in the solo
group. Moreover, their intensity ratings significantly increased
between the first and second orgasm of the series. While our
data do not allow for the assertion that fundamental differ-
ences exist between women who experience multiple orgasm
in a solo versus a dyadic context, we would posit that these
observed differences may be due to both physiological aspects,
such as different methods of stimulation, and psychological
aspects, such as the experience of emotional intimacy and
partner effects (e.g., seeing one’s partner aroused). Overall,
these findings echo Sherfey’s (1973) earlier physiological
description of female multiple orgasm. Conversely, solo
women tend to report either unchanged or decreased levels
arousal with each successive orgasm, which is in line with
Amberson and Hoon’s (1985) earlier findings that successive
orgasms are neither physiologically nor subjectively stronger
in a small sample of college women instructed to self-
stimulate to orgasm.
Multiorgasmic capacity seems to vary greatly from one
multiorgasmic woman to another, particularly in the context
of a dyadic interaction. Perhaps unsurprisingly, women were
more likely to feel complete control over their multiorgasmic
capacity in a solo context compared to a partnered interac-
tion. This finding is consistent with the larger orgasm litera-
ture reporting lower rates of orgasmic difficulties in the
context of masturbation than partnered sex (Rowland et al.,
2019). Overall, a wide range of number of orgasms was
reported, with two women exhibiting a very high multiorgas-
mic capacity, such as previously reported by Shtarkshall et al.
(2008); less than 10% experienced more than eight orgasms in
a row, and nearly one-third reported a typical multiorgasmic
pattern of two orgasms.
Interestingly, both the duration and context of the sexual
interaction did not seem related to the number of orgasms
experienced by multiorgasmic women during their typical
sexual episode. Previous studies have highlighted the limited
role of duration on female orgasm quality (Herbenick et al.,
2018), while others have shown an association between dura-
tion and orgasm frequency in heterosexual women only
(Frederick et al., 2018). It is noteworthy that only 10% of
multiorgasmic women who engaged in a dyadic interaction
reported a sexual episode shorter than 14 minutes, a finding
consistent with Frederick et al’s. (2018) data suggesting that
women who usually orgasm in a partnered context are less
likely than women who rarely orgasm to report such shorter
durations. Duration of the sexual interaction for solo multi-
orgasmic women was also consistent with available data in
single orgasmic women (Carvalheira & Leal, 2013). The
apparent lack of context influence on multiorgasmic capacity,
as surprising as it may be, could be interpreted as added
THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH 11
evidence toward the existence of various profiles of multi-
orgasmic women.
In line with large recent self-report studies (Frederick et al.,
2018; Herbenick et al., 2018), as well as psychophysiological
data (Prause et al., 2016), findings regarding stimulation types
highlight both the importance of clitoral stimulation as well as
the relatively modest contribution of intercourse alone to
female orgasm. Solo multiorgasmic women reported the
same rate of manual clitoral stimulation for either the first
or the second orgasm, while displaying a particularly
short second orgasm latency period, with nearly half of
them experiencing their second orgasm within one minute
of stimulation. This seems to point out that when adequately
aroused and stimulated, some women can give themselves
a second orgasm with ease. Furthermore, bearing in mind
the ejaculation latency data—between five and seven minutes
(Waldinger et al., 2005)—the fact that multiorgasmic dyadic
women reported clitoral stimulation as the most frequent
stimulation type for their first orgasm and intercourse for
their second orgasm could point to important and previously
suspected partner effects (Darling et al., 1991; Shtarkshall
et al., 2008). It could be that male partners of multiorgasmic
women are more likely to know what pleases them, which is
one of the top two factors listed as female orgasm enhance-
ments (Herbenick et al., 2018), and/or that they are more
likely to delay their ejaculation, as initially suggested by
Darling et al. (1991). It could also point to multiorgasmic
women’s sexual assertiveness in communicating their needs
and wants (e.g., requesting clitoral stimulation) (Shtarkshall
et al., 2008), a factor also known to influence orgasmic func-
tion (Wade et al., 2005).
Multiorgasmic Women’s Psychosexual History
Psychosexual data revealed that, on average, the majority of
women who experience multiple orgasm reported an early age
of masturbation onset—over 60% had masturbated before the
age of 14 years old—which is in line with some of the previous
findings on multiorgasmic women’s solo sexual history
(Darling et al., 1991). Compared with retrospective data on
age of masturbation onset in single orgasmic women by
Robbins et al. (2011), a larger proportion of women in our
sample had engaged in self-stimulation by age 14 (72.1%
versus 43.3%). However, a nonnegligible portion of our sam-
ple also reported an average age of onset of solo sexual
activities, or instead exhibited a later age of onset for such
activities compared with single orgasmic women. These find-
ings suggest that psychosexual patterns are not necessarily
distinct between women who experience multiple orgasm
and those who do not and again points at the heterogeneity
of the phenomenon.
The majority of the women sampled in our study reported
higher levels of sexual motivation than their peers—in sexual
disinhibition, sexual interest, and sexual adventurousness—
which is in line with previous findings highlighting the role of
sexual attitudes on orgasm function (Bancroft et al., 2009; Tavares
et al., 2018), particularly that of inhibition and lack of sexual
interest in orgasm difficulties (Graham et al., 2006; Hevesi et al.,
2019). Along with higher levels of overall sexual motivation, they
12 M. GÉRARD ET AL.
also reported high levels of sexual desire. In fact, participants’ self-
reported rates of sexual thoughts were higher than previously
documented in samples of heterosexual female undergraduates
(Jones & Barlow, 1990). This finding is consistent with clinical
anecdotes (Shtarkshall et al., 2008) as well as with previous data
(Darling et al., 1991) suggesting an association between multi-
orgasmic capacity and more frequent sexual fantasy for some
women. Similar results were found for masturbation frequency,
with multiorgasmic women indicating higher rates of monthly
masturbation (7.5 times) than previously reported in single orgas-
mic female college samples (4.7 times per month) (Pinkerton et al.,
2002), and in national U.S. samples of single orgasmic women
aged 25 to 39 years old (6.6% versus 54.9% in our sample)
(Herbenick et al., 2010).
Profiles of Multiorgasmic Women
The composite nature of multiple orgasm as a phenomenon is
evident through the analysis of the four profiles of multi-
orgasmic women obtained from our data. Analyses yielded
three major findings: (1) female multiple orgasm seems to be
largely described by six major factors: overall sexual motiva-
tion, age of onset of solo sexual activities and orgasm, current
levels of sexual desire, age of onset of partnered sexual activ-
ities, multiorgasmic capacity, and timing parameters; (2) con-
text—solo versus partnered—does not seem to be associated
with any unexpected differences in terms of multiple orgasm
characteristics; (3) four different profiles of multiorgasmic
women emerged from our data set, all showing significant
variations in terms of the aforementioned aspects, but parti-
cularly with regard to sexual motivation, age of onset of sexual
activity, and multiple orgasm characteristics. Further, our
findings suggest that most but not all multiorgasmic women
seem to stand out from single orgasmic women with regard to
sexual motivation and to some extent with regard to sexual
history.
The few women in Cluster 4 (N = 12) are distinct from the
rest of the sample due to their significantly higher multior-
gasmic abilities, both in terms of multiorgasmic capacity—
with the highest number of orgasms of the sample (70.58)—
and multiorgasmic timing parameters—with the shortest first
orgasm latency (7.90 minutes) and longest duration of sexual
interaction (43.33 minutes). Although such high numbers of
multiple orgasms have not yet been physiologically documen-
ted, previously published clinical anecdotes support such data
(Shtarkshall et al., 2008). The fact that they are the oldest
women of the sample adds to the remarkable nature of their
profiles and perhaps nuances the frequently found negative
association between age and orgasmic function (Rowland &
Kolba, 2016). Equally surprising is both (1) their relatively
average age of masturbation onset (13.67 years old), which is
somewhat in line with that reported by other studies
(14.2 years old in Pinkerton et al., 2002; 15 years old in
Carvalheira & Leal, 2013; 14.00 years old in Burri &
Carvalheira, 2019); and (2) their late multiorgasmic age of
onset (23.75 years old), which is significantly higher than that
of a majority of women in our sample (Cluster 2: 16.58 years
old; Cluster 3: 19.46 years old). To some extent, this finding
tampers the reasonable assumption that developmental
learning and/or early sexual initiation might be largely at
play in these women’s orgasmic patterns (Darling et al.,
1991). However, it would seem that their physiological
response is quickly activated, and in a dyadic context for
most of them, thus either strongly hinting at partner effects
or at some yet to-be-determined physiological capability. Not
only do they display the shortest orgasm latency of the sample
(7.90 minutes), which aligns with that reported by solo multi-
orgasmic women (7.16 minutes), but they also report the
longest duration of sexual activity. These findings suggest
a need for further investigations into dyadic sexual commu-
nication and sexual attitudes (e.g., motivations for engaging in
partnered sex, meaning ascribed to sexuality) to better under-
stand their particular experiences or further physiological
investigations. Overall, the very small number of women
who fit this profile (less than 3% of the total sample) would
suggest that such off-the-charts multiorgasmic experiences are
rather uncommon.
In contrast, women in Cluster 1 (N = 78) seem to display
a somewhat average multiorgasmic profile. Their multiorgas-
mic capacity data fall within the average reported by the
sample, while their timing parameters are higher than the
average. In fact, their reported duration of sexual activity is
significantly higher than that of a majority of women in our
sample (Cluster 2 and Cluster 3, N = 329) and their orgasm
latency is significantly higher than that of the largest cluster of
women (Cluster 2, N = 234). This can perhaps be explained by
the fact that the vast majority of this cluster (nearly 80%)
reports a dyadic multiorgasmic context. Interestingly, their
psychosexual profile is characterized by the latest ages of
onset for solo activities—in other words, significantly higher
ages of orgasm and masturbation onset than the rest of the
sample—showing again that, contrary to previously posited
hypotheses (Darling et al., 1991), for a large fraction of multi-
orgasmic women earlier sexual initiation is not a distinct
factor in their capacity. Perhaps even more interesting is the
fact that this cluster of women report earlier ages of onset for
partnered sexual activities and intercourse than for solo mas-
turbation (16.90 years old for partnered sex and 18.37 years
old for intercourse versus 19.04 years old for masturbation).
This unique feature compared to the rest of the sample is
actually consistent with their report of a dyadic multiorgasmic
context. Moreover, sociodemographic data suggest that these
women may hold more traditional values (i.e., highest percen-
tage of heterosexual women and lowest percentage of non-
religious individuals). Finally, their sexual motivation profile
indicates that they feel generally more sexually motivated than
their peers, while reporting average current sexual drive and
monthly masturbation rates (5.7 times per month) relatively
consistent with published research on college women (4.7
times per month in Pinkerton et al., 2002) and community
samples (Burri & Carvalheira, 2019). Based on our data, these
women’s profile suggests that their multiorgasmic capacity is
probably better explained by their sexual motivation and by
partner effects rather than their own, comparatively late, sex-
ual exploration.
The largest group of women, Cluster 2 (N = 234), is also
the youngest and includes multiorgasmic women whose pro-
file seems to fit with previously published hypotheses, both in

terms of sexual motivation and psychosexual characteristics.
These women display the highest levels of general sexual
motivation and sexual desire of the sample, as well as higher
figures than available data on masturbation frequency (10.4
times per month) (Burri & Carvalheira, 2019; Pinkerton et al.,
2002). They also display the earliest ages of onset of the
sample for both solo activities (i.e., significantly younger
ages of masturbation, orgasm, and multiorgasm onset) and
partnered sexual behaviors (i.e., significantly younger ages of
partnered sex and intercourse) than most other clusters.
Moreover, they report younger ages of masturbation onset
(11.38 years old) and intercourse onset (16.5 years old) than
previously documented in single-orgasmic college women
(14.2 and 17.5 years old, respectively, in Pinkerton et al.,
2002) and U.S. probability samples (17.5 for intercourse in
Magnusson et al., 2015). In the case of these multiorgasmic
women, and unlike the previous clusters, earlier sexual initia-
tion could have very well contributed to their multiorgasmic
capacity. Yet their multiorgasmic characteristics—capacity
and timing parameters—remain relatively average compared
to the other clusters, thereby reinforcing the idea that various
psychosexual profiles, rather than one single type, characterize
female multiple orgasm. Finally, sociodemographic data show
that this is a sexually diverse group of women, with fewer
heterosexual and married individuals than in other clusters,
perhaps pointing at an endorsement of more liberal values.
The fact that this profile includes the largest number of multi-
orgasmic women could perhaps speak to the commonness of
these broad features among other multiorgasmic women: high
sexual motivation, early solo sexual initiation, average orgasm
latency, and more sexual diversity.
Finally, women in Cluster 3 (N = 95) first stand out from
their multiorgasmic counterparts with regard to their rela-
tively average sexual motivation profile. In fact, they report
the lowest general sexual motivation scores of the sample.
However, these scores are still within population norms, as
these women rate their levels of sexual adventurousness,
interest, and disinhibition rather close to those of their
peers. Compared with available data on single-orgasmic
women, Cluster 3 women also exhibit typical levels of sexual
drive, with rates of monthly masturbation (a little more than
5.5 times per month) similar to those of single-orgasmic
women (Pinkerton et al., 2002). Moreover, they also stand
out from the rest of the sample with regard to their partnered
psychosexual profile: They report the oldest age of onset for
intercourse (19.3 years old), which also happens to be higher
than typically documented in single-orgasmic women
(Magnusson et al., 2015; Pinkerton et al., 2002). Of note, is
their unique tendency to report being very religious that could
partly account for their delayed intercourse onset. Yet this
cluster also includes a larger proportion of women who report
a solo multiorgasmic context (45% instead of 33%). Their later
age of intercourse onset may explain their preference for
a solo rather than a dyadic multiorgasmic context, perhaps
pointing to differences in terms of sexual attitudes and sexual
communication/assertiveness compared to women in other
clusters. Interestingly, these women are also more likely to
report being married (43%), therefore reinforcing a need for
further investigation into partner dynamics and multiple
THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH 13
orgasm. Finally, they display a significantly shorter duration
of sexual activity compared to their rest of the sample, which
could be interpreted through the lens of their solo sexual
context or as a by-product of further potential partner effects.
Collectively, such initial findings indicate that, contrary to
popular belief, female multiple orgasm is not the result of
a particular recipe but rather that some women might get there
one way and some another, which has significant clinical impli-
cations. More specifically, this research suggests that various
psychosexual patterns can lead to multiple orgasm. In fact,
while early sexual self-exploration is a characteristic of the largest
cluster of multiorgasmic women, our findings also show that, for
some women, their multiorgasmic capacity developed later,
either by themselves or with a partner, as evidenced by Cluster
1 and Cluster 3. Our data also suggest, albeit unsurprisingly, that
sexual motivation and desire play an important role for most
multiorgasmic women, and yet, as illustrated by women in
Cluster 3, it does not necessarily need to be off the charts.
Conversely, this research also supports previously published
(Shtarkshall et al., 2008) and unpublished clinical anecdotes,
whereby women’s multiorgasmic capacity can, in some rare
cases, reach exceptional proportions. Finally, as previously sus-
pected by several researchers (Darling et al., 1991), our data seem
to point at various partner effects, with a majority of multi-
orgasmic women reporting a dyadic sexual context. This is all
the more interesting, and perhaps surprising, considering recent
data highlighting the challenges faced by heterosexual women in
experiencing orgasm in a dyadic context (Frederick et al., 2018).
Still, as important as the multiorgasmic context may be in
enhancing our understanding of female multiple orgasm, the
fact that context as a variable did not result in different PCA
structures would suggest that it is not as pivotal a factor as
perhaps suspected, at least in our sample. Regardless, further
investigations seem warranted to refine our grasp of which
specific dyadic aspects (sexual communication, sexual attitudes,
etc.) contribute to women’s multiorgasmic experiences.
Limitations and Future Research
There are important limitations to this research. First, while
our Hite-based definition of multiple orgasm led us to recruit
a wide range of women reporting this experience, it is unlikely
that our sample is representative of all women who experience
multiple orgasm. Second, although we were able to clarify
some of the timing parameters relevant to the definition of
possible subtypes of multiple orgasm, data are still lacking.
Our sample was nearly evenly split between those reporting
no break in stimulation (multiple orgasm) and those report-
ing a stimulation break (sequential orgasm) between the first
and second orgasm of the series. Although timing parameters
were recorded for those reporting a stimulation break, thus
helping us refine the meaning of “in succession,” we did not
obtain such data for the subsequent orgasms of the series.
Further research should collect these data, which will help
address the long-standing hypothesis that there are different
types of multiple orgasm based on whether the experience/
stimulation is continuous. This shortcoming leaves the exact
meaning of “in succession” as somewhat vague despite having
gained a certain advancement. Consequently, these
14 M. GÉRARD ET AL.
definitional challenges force us to be cautious upon interpret-
ing our findings and attempting to generalize them to most
multiorgasmic women.
Third, a number of women in the solo group reported being in
a relationship (N = 108, 25%), and we could not tease apart
whether they could have multiple orgasm only during solo activity
because we asked about what was typical for them. Similarly, we
could not tell whether women in the dyadic group who experi-
enced multiple orgasm through partnered stimulation did it via
their partners only or by themselves. Because orgasm is typically
understood as a multifaceted psychoneurophysiological event, it
proves difficult to decipher who is solely behind the triggering of
the multiorgasmic episode in a dyadic context. We would assume
it is an accumulation of stimulations, both physical and cerebral,
that leads one to experience multiple orgasm.
Fourth, our data were collected online through self-reports
and as such carries the well-known limitations associated with
this type of research. Although we carefully circumscribed the
sample to women reporting a multiorgasmic event in the past
six months and with a good recollection of the event, the
specificity of our questions was such (e.g., multiorgasmic
timing parameters, arousal level changes, orgasm latency)
that recollection biases are likely. In particular, it is not clear
to us whether the latency to orgasm parameters that we
collected are accurate or whether women remember such
latencies for each orgasm in a series. It may be possible to
ask women to use stopwatches, as has been done in the
premature ejaculation literature (Waldinger et al., 2005). It
may also be possible to collect such data in the laboratory and
supplement them with psychophysiological data for women
experiencing solo multiple orgasm.
Fifth, our nonvalidated outcome measures make it difficult to
assess the validity of the data collected and to replicate our find-
ings. Future research designs would benefit from well-validated
instruments to measure constructs such as orgasm (Orgasm
Rating Scale [ORS], Mah & Binik, 2002; Bodily Sensations of
Orgasm questionnaire [BSO], Dubray et al., 2017), and sexual
excitation/inhibition (Sexual Excitation/Sexual Inhibition
Inventory for Women [SESII-W], Graham et al., 2006), to name
a few.
Sixth, in an attempt to keep the length of the survey
reasonable, we did not inquire about other potentially impor-
tant correlates of multiple orgasm, including cognitive-
affective variables (e.g., mindfulness, Adam et al., 2015; sexual
satisfaction, Kontula & Miettinen, 2016), partner data (e.g.,
age, relationship length, satisfaction) and biological para-
meters (e.g., hormonal status, contraceptive use, medication).
Seventh, although we referred to population data when avail-
able, it would have been useful to have a matched control group
of single-orgasmic women. Moreover, Israeli participants were
overrepresented in our sample, which needs to be kept in mind
upon interpreting our data. Finally, it seems likely to us that
requiring responses to some of the qualitative questions would
have helped our understanding of this phenomenon.
Conclusions
Based on a large and diverse convenience sample our findings
suggest that female multiple orgasm typically refers to a series of
two to three orgasms, either experienced in a solo or dyadic
context. Usually, there is no break in stimulation or a short break
(of one to three minutes) between the first and second orgasm of
the series, and the transition between first and second orgasms is
marked by various patterns of sexual arousal (an increase or
a decrease) depending on the sexual context. By and large, our
findings suggest that female multiple orgasm is far from being
a unitary phenomenon. Several profiles of women report experi-
encing multiple orgasm and show significant variations in terms
of their sexual motivation and desire, their history of sexual self-
exploration and partnered sexual activities, as well as their multi-
orgasmic capacity per se. While our data point to the relevance
of heightened sexual motivation, partner dynamics, and, to some
extent, early sexual exploration, they also reveal that these factors
may vary greatly among multiorgasmic women. Interestingly,
this wide-ranging survey also provided support for previously
published anecdotes of exceptional multiorgasmic capacity,
thereby reinforcing the validity of such reports. Future research
aimed at refining the timing parameters associated with multiple
orgasm and relying on validated self-report instruments and
psychophysiological measures may be helpful in enhancing our
limited understanding of this intriguing experience.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflicts of interest were reported by the authors.
References
Adam, F., Geonet, M., Day, J., & de Sutter, P. (2015). Mindfulness skills
are associated with orgasm? Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 30(2),
256–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2014.986085
Amberson, J. I., & Hoon, P. W. (1985). Hemodynamics of sequential
orgasm. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14(4), 351–360. https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF01550850
Bancroft, J., Graham, C. A., Janssen, E., & Sanders, S. A. (2009). The dual
control model: Current status and future directions. Journal of Sex
Research, 46(2–3), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00224490902747222
Bohlen, J. G., Held, J. P., Sanderson, M. O., & Boyer, C. M. (1982).
Development of a woman’s multiple orgasm pattern: A research case
report. Journal of Sex Research, 18(2), 130–145. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00224498209551144
Burri, A., & Carvalheira, A. (2019). Masturbatory behavior in
a population sample of German women. Journal of Sexual Medicine,
16(7), 963–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.04.015
Campbell, B., Hartman, W., Fithian, M., & Campbell, I. (1975). Polygraphic
survey of the human sexual response. The Physiologist, 18(3), 154.
Carvalheira, A., & Leal, I. (2013). Masturbation among women:
Associated factors and sexual response in a Portuguese community
sample. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 39(4), 347–367. https://
doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2011.628440
Clark, L. (1946). Emotional adjustment in marriage. CV Mosby
Company.
Clifford, R. E. (1978). Subjective sexual experience in college women.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7(3), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF01542378
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Cohen, J. (1992). Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer.
Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.112.1.155
Crepault, C. (1981). L’expérience orgastique. In C. Crépault, J. J. Levy, &
H. Gratton (Eds.), Sexologie contemporaine (pp. 271–281). Les Presses
de l’Université du Québec.

Darling, C. A., Davidson, J. K., & Jennings, D. A. (1991). The female
sexual response revisited: Understanding the multiorgasmic experi-
ence in women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 20(6), 527–540. https://
doi.org/10.1007/BF01550952
Davis, K. B. (1929). Factors in the sex life of twenty-two hundred women.
Harper & Brothers.
Dickinson, R. L., & Beam, L. (1931). A thousand marriages. Williams &
Wilkins.
Dubray, S., Gérard, M., Beaulieu-Prévost, D., & Courtois, F. (2017).
Validation of the self-report questionnaire assessing the bodily and
physiological sensations of orgasm. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 14(2),
255–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.12.006
Fisher, S. (1973). The female orgasm: Psychology, physiology, fantasy.
Basic Books.
Frederick, D. A., St John, H. K. S., Garcia, J. R., & Lyod, E. A. (2018).
Differences in orgasm frequency among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and
heterosexual men and women in a U.S. national sample. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 47(1), 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s105080170939-z
Graham, C. A., Sanders, S. A., & Milhausen, R. R. (2006). The Sexual
Excitation/Sexual Inhibition for Women: Psychometric properties.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35(4), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10508-006-9041-7
Hamilton, G. V. (1929). A research in marriage. Albert & Charles
Boni.
Haning, R. V., O’Keefe, S. L., Beard, K. W., Randall, E. J., Kommor, M. J.,
& Stroebel, S. S. (2008). Empathic sexual responses in heterosexual
women and men. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 23(4), 325–344.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14681990802326743
Herbenick, D., Fu, T. J., Arter, J., Sanders, S. A., & Dodge, B. (2018).
Women’s experiences with genital touching, sexual pleasure, and
orgasm: Results from a U.S. probability sample of women ages 18 to
94. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 44(2), 201–212. https://doi.
org/10.1080/0092623X.2017.1346530
Herbenick, D., Reece, M., Schick, V., Sanders, S. A., Dodge, B., &
Fortenberry, J. D. (2010). Sexual behavior in the United States:
Results from a national probability sample of men and women ages
14–94. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7(suppl 5), 255–265. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02012.x
Hevesi, K., Hevesi, G. B., Kolba, T. N., & Rowland, D. L. (2019). Self-
reported reasons for having difficulty reaching orgasm during part-
nered sex: Relation to orgasmic pleasure. Journal of Psychosomatic
Obstetrics & Gynecology, 29, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/0167482X.
2019.1599857
Hite, S. (1976). The Hite report: A nationwide study of female sexuality.
Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc.
Jones, J. C., & Barlow, D. H. (1990). Self-reported frequency of sexual
urges, fantasies, and masturbatory fantasies in heterosexual males and
females. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19(3), 269–279. https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF01541552
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. (1953).
Sexual behavior in the human female (1st ed.). W.B. Saunders.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. (1998).
Sexual behavior in the human female. Indiana University Press.
Kontula, O., & Miettinen, A. (2016). Determinants of female sexual
orgasms. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 6(1), 31624.
https://doi.org/10.3402/snp.v6.31624
Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate
cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs.
Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.
00863
Levine, R. J. (2004). An orgasm is … who defines what an orgasm is?
Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 19(1), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14681990410001641663
Levine, 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. https://doi.org/10.
1007/BF01542004
THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH 15
MacQueen, J. (1967). Some methods for classification and analysis of
multivariate observations. In Proceedings of the 5th Berkeley
Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Volume 1:
Statistics, 281–297. Berkeley: University of California Press. http://
projecteuclid.org/euclid.bsmsp/1200512992
Magnusson, B. M., Nield, J. A., & Lapane, K. L. (2015). Age at first
intercourse and subsequent sexual partnering among adult women
in the United States, a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 15
(1), 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1458-2
Mah, K., & Binik, Y. M. (2001). The nature of human orgasm: A critical
review of major trends. Clinical Psychology Review, 21(6), 823–856.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(00)00069-6
Mah, K., & Binik, Y. M. (2002). Do all orgasms feel alike? Evaluating a
two-dimensional model of the orgasm experience across gender and
sexual context. Journal of Sex Research, 39(2), 104–113. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00224490209552129
Marshall, D. S. (1971). Sexual behavior on Mangaia. In D. S. Marshall &
R. C. Suggs (Eds.), Human sexual behavior: Variations in the ethno-
graphic spectrum (pp. 103–162). Basic Books.
Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1966). Human sexual response. Little &
Brown.
McMahon, C. G., Abdo, C., Incrocci, L., Perelman, M., Rowland, D.,
Stuckey, B., Waldinger, M., & Xin, Z. C. (2004). Disorders of orgasm
and ejaculation in men. In T. Lue, R. Basson, R. Rosen, et al, (Eds.),
Sexual medicine: Sexual dysfunctions in men and women. Second
international consultation on sexual dysfunctions (pp. 409–468).
Editions 21.
Meston, C. M., Hull, E., Levin, R. J., & Sipski, M. (2004). Women’s
orgasm. In T. Lue, R. Basson, R. Rosen, et al, (Eds.), Sexual medicine:
Sexual dysfunctions in men and women. Second international consulta-
tion on sexual dysfunctions (pp. 783–850). Editions 21.
Mundfrom, D. J., Shaw, D. G., & Lu Ke, T. (2005). Minimum sample size
recommendations for conducting factor analyses. International
Journal of Testing, 5(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327574ijt0502_4
Pfaus, J. G., Kippin, T. E., & Centeno, S. (2001). Conditioning and sexual
behavior: A review. Hormones & Behavior, 40(2), 291–321. https://doi.
org/10.1006/hbeh.2001.1686
Pinkerton, S. D., Bogart, L. M., Cecil, H., & Abramson, P. R. (2002).
Factors associated with masturbation in a collegiate sample. Journal of
Psychology & Human Sexuality, 14(2–3), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.
1300/J056v14n02_07
Prause, N., Kuang, L., Lee, P., & Miller, G. (2016). Clitorally stimulated
orgasms are associated with better control of sexual desire, and not
associated with depression or anxiety, compared with vaginally sti-
mulated orgasms. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 13(11), 1676–1685.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.08.014
Robbins, C., Schick, V., Reece, M., Herbenick, D., Sanders, S. A.,
Dodge, B., & Fortenberry, D. (2011). Prevalence, frequency, and
associations of masturbation with partnered sexual behaviors
among US adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent
Medicine, 165(12), 1087–1093. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedia
trics.2011.142
Rowland, D. L., Donarksi, A., Graves, V., Caldwell, C., Hevesi, B., &
Hevesi, K. (2019). The experience of orgasmic pleasure during part-
nered and masturbatory sex in women with and without orgasmic
difficulty. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 45(6), 550–561. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00926230590513401
Rowland, D. L., & Kolba, T. N. (2016). Understanding orgasmic difficulty
in women. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 13(8), 1246–1254. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.05.014
Rowland, D. L., Sullivan, S. L., Hevesi, K., & Hevesi, B. (2018). Orgasmic
latency and related parameters in women during partnered and mas-
turbatory sex. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 15(10), 1463–1471. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.08.003
Sherfey, M. J. (1966). The evolution and nature of female sexuality in
relation to psychoanalytic theory. Journal of the American
Psychoanalytic Association, 14(1), 28–128.
16 M. GÉRARD ET AL.
Sherfey, M. J. (1973). The nature and evolution of female sexuality.
Vintage Books.
Sholty, M. J., Ephross, P. H., Plaut, S. M., Fischman, S. H., Charnas, J. F., &
Cody, C. A. (1984). Female orgasmic experience: A subjective study.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 13(2), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF01542149
Shtarkshall, R. A., Anonymous, & Feldman, B. S. (2008). A woman with
a high capacity for multi-orgasms: A non-clinical case-report study.
Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 23(3),259–269. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14681990802094978
Singer, J., & Singer, I. (1972). Types of female orgasms. Journal of
Sex Research, 8(4), 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00224497209550761
Tavares, I. M., Laan, E. T. M., & Nobre, P. J. (2018). Sexual inhibition is
a vulnerability factor for orgasm problems in women. Journal of
Sexual Medicine, 15(3), 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.
12.015
Wade, L. D., Kremer, E. C., & Brown, J. (2005). The incidental orgasm:
The presence of clitoral knowledge and the absence of orgasm in
women. Women & Health, 42(1), 117–138. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J013v42n01_07
Waldinger, M. D., Quinn, P., Dilleen, M., Mundayat, R.,
Schweitzer, D. H., & Boolell, M. (2005). A multinational population
survey of intravaginal ejaculation latency time. Journal of Sexual
Medicine, 2(4), 492–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.
00070.x