TY - JOUR
AU - Lloyd, Elisabeth
AB - Arch Sex Behav (2017) 46:1191–1194 DOI 10.1007/s10508-017-0970-0 COMMENTARY Orgasms and Objectification Elisabeth A. Lloyd Received: 1 February 2017 / Accepted: 21 February 2017 / Published online: 4 March 2017 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017 This is a fascinating and incisive article by Chivers (2017), approximately one-quarter of women have reliable orgasms, one- from which I learned a great deal. I do have a few questions third reliably do not (never or rarely), and the remaining*42% of and remarks, which I offer to stimulate conversation about the women sometimes do and sometimes do not. As such, one would various mysteries and ideas raised in the article. expect that a minority of women would be characterized by‘‘con- 1. Orgasm Variability: With regard to Hypothesis 9, Greater sistency of reinforcement via orgasm’’ as described by Chivers variability in sexual rewards among androphilic women, Chivers and, by extension, a gender-specific pattern of sexual arousal. writes: ‘‘Although androphilic women may be sexually attracted In our new study (Frederick, St. John, Garcia, & Lloyd, to men, preferred gender cues may not be as strongly linked with 2017), oral sex, deep kissing, and genital stimulation, in combina- prolonged reward-seeking behavior by dint of the commonly- 
TI - Orgasms and Objectification
JF - Archives of Sexual Behavior
DO - 10.1007/s10508-017-0970-0
DA - 2017-03-04
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springer-journals/orgasms-and-objectification-bmv7FPw30t
SP - 1191
EP - 1194
VL - 46
IS - 5
DP - DeepDyve
ER -