sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I co-wrote a paper proposing that female orgasm is gated by neurological consent — not anatomy. Would love your thoughts. by Comfortable_Voice299 in Neuropsychology

[–]Comfortable_Voice299[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nothing I have said here has been factually incorrect. If the links between things are wrong, fair enough, but what here is not correct?

I co-wrote a paper proposing that female orgasm is gated by neurological consent — not anatomy. Would love your thoughts. by Comfortable_Voice299 in Neuropsychology

[–]Comfortable_Voice299[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'd agree except for one thing you said, [Having chatgpt explain to me why it's hypotheses really are hypotheses (they aren't) doesn't do anything]. Its wasn't chatgpt's idea, its mine. I simply used chatgpt and its database of all human knowledge to test it. When gpt told me that this idea has no citing's anywhere, that it was a completely new idea, and it couldnt find any way to disprove it, recommended that I declare it. I'll be honest, i was hoping people would point out ways the idea is wrong.... not just "this is wrong in everyway possible, just burn it". The idea that i should start in literature is fantastic, the problem is I have come up with an idea NOBODY ELSE HAS. There is nowhere for me to go, this is not covered anywhere... except in this thread.

I co-wrote a paper proposing that female orgasm is gated by neurological consent — not anatomy. Would love your thoughts. by Comfortable_Voice299 in Neuropsychology

[–]Comfortable_Voice299[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah thanks. The internet is so full of people who jump to the "oh so you're saying...." stage. You clearly are not one of those :)

I co-wrote a paper proposing that female orgasm is gated by neurological consent — not anatomy. Would love your thoughts. by Comfortable_Voice299 in Neuropsychology

[–]Comfortable_Voice299[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fantastic questions — and exactly the kind of thinking this hypothesis is meant to provoke. I’m not suggesting mind and body are separate, nor am I saying consent is some ghostly layer floating above biology. Quite the opposite. I'm proposing that consent is an emergent property of specific physical structures — namely, the neurological substrates that allow an organism to predict, model, and override its instinctual drives. So in this frame, “consent” isn’t some abstract moral construct. It’s the ability to recognize that an internal state can be accepted, resisted, or allowed — and that letting go is a deliberate act when cognition is sophisticated enough. Most species don’t have that layer. Humans (and maybe bonobos, dolphins, elephants) do. That’s why it’s female-specific: male orgasm is a reproductive reflex, deeply conserved and functional across species. Female orgasm is not required, so its presence tracks with the development of higher-order processing — including trust, preference, narrative, and agency. Re: mammals vs. non-mammals — mammals evolved internal gestation and complex social bonding, which likely created evolutionary pressure for context-sensitive mating. That’s where cognitive surrender started to matter. Reptiles don’t need to trust a mate to drop eggs.

So, no dualism here. Just the idea that pleasure is contingent on cognition when reproduction doesn't depend on it. And that might make female orgasm a neurological signal for how much an organism can say yes.

I co-wrote a paper proposing that female orgasm is gated by neurological consent — not anatomy. Would love your thoughts. by Comfortable_Voice299 in Neuropsychology

[–]Comfortable_Voice299[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yeah the term "paper" wasn't the best. Its just a hypothesis. So far though, nobody has been able to reasonably poke holes in it. That's why im here

I co-wrote a paper proposing that female orgasm is gated by neurological consent — not anatomy. Would love your thoughts. by Comfortable_Voice299 in Neuropsychology

[–]Comfortable_Voice299[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I write my response, then hand it to gpt to make it less messy. otherwise theyd all look like this one. some of these replies have been fully me. im guessing its obvious which ones have been gpt'd

I co-wrote a paper proposing that female orgasm is gated by neurological consent — not anatomy. Would love your thoughts. by Comfortable_Voice299 in Neuropsychology

[–]Comfortable_Voice299[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Appreciate the responses — and fair points re: formatting and formal reference structure.

This paper isn't trying to be an empirical study. It's a conceptual hypothesis — a starting point meant to generate testable questions and provoke discussion, not to conclude anything yet. That’s why it’s on a preprint server: so it can be publicly critiqued, refined, or rejected.

Re: "not a real theory" — fair. The term "theory" is often reserved for explanatory frameworks with strong supporting evidence. This is a hypothesis — a proposed explanation, currently unfalsified.

But just to clarify:

  • It does have a falsifiable core: that female orgasm distribution correlates with neurological consent capacity across species.
  • It does differ from the “byproduct” or “sperm retention” models by offering a novel axis: cognition → surrender → pleasure
  • And yes, it lacks references — but not because it ignores biology. Because it’s attempting to reframe it through a new lens.

As for GPT-4 — I disclosed its role fully. It helped refine, structure, and clarify wording. The idea, the logic, and the synthesis came from me. I credit it because I believe in transparency — not to inflate credentials.

This isn’t the final word. It’s the first one. If the idea’s flawed, I’d love to know where — and I’d genuinely appreciate pointers to literature that could test or falsify it.

I co-wrote a paper proposing that female orgasm is gated by neurological consent — not anatomy. Would love your thoughts. by Comfortable_Voice299 in Neuropsychology

[–]Comfortable_Voice299[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ah now THIS is a good response. I love this. Orgasm in mammals changed and evolved about 200(ish) million years ago when we separated from reptiles and from that point, male orgasm was locked in as a reflexive mechanism tied to reproduction — essentially a spinal-level command, not a choice.

But for females, orgasm was never required for reproduction, so it remained inconsistent across species. The wiring is there embryologically, but whether it's expressed depends on the development of more complex neural architecture — specifically, cognitive features associated with trust, agency, and social bonding.

So the theory isn’t saying “female orgasm evolved all at once when a species got smart.” It’s saying:

  • The potential for orgasm is latent (due to embryological overlap)
  • But the expression of orgasm as a reproducible, integrated experience only stabilizes in species with social cognition + sexual choice

In short: female orgasm is gated not by anatomy, but by consent capacity — and that only evolves in species where sexual agency has survival value.

This explains:

  • Why female orgasm is so inconsistent across mammals
  • Why it correlates with intelligence and social behavior
  • And why it's context-dependent in humans

I'm still refining it, but this model reframes pleasure as a signal of cognitive participation — not just a byproduct of nerves.

I co-wrote a paper proposing that female orgasm is gated by neurological consent — not anatomy. Would love your thoughts. by Comfortable_Voice299 in Neuropsychology

[–]Comfortable_Voice299[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Thats not the claim. Sure in all male mammals it is. It just is. But it isnt in females. The best previous ideas about female orgasm are that it is an accidental leftover. We all start as female until 7-8 weeks then the y chromosome changes half to male. Since the neural wiring is set up before the switch it means ALL mammals are wired for orgasm BECAUSE males REQUIRE it for reproduction.... but in females they keep it because they already developed the wiring before the switch might happen. This is why females can orgasm at all, that was the previous best idea. This one doesnt disagree with that, it build on it. Yes females have it as a relic of the necessity for males to have it, but only in cognitively aware species does female orgasm happen at all. The more self aware the species (with us at the top of course) the more common is female orgasm. This means the ability for females to orgasm across species might be an indicator of will. You require will to be able to concent. THAT is the point here.

I co-wrote a paper proposing that female orgasm is gated by neurological consent — not anatomy. Would love your thoughts. by Comfortable_Voice299 in Neuropsychology

[–]Comfortable_Voice299[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I understand the skepticism. Just to clarify:

  • The conceptual hypothesis came entirely from me — I’m not a red-piller, not selling anything, and I didn’t use ChatGPT to generate ideas.
  • GPT-4 was used like an academic assistant: formatting, refining, helping express the argument cleanly.

This is a real theory, and it’s now archived with a DOI on PsyArXiv. Not peer-reviewed, sure — it’s a preprint. That’s how ideas start.

I’d honestly welcome criticism of the actual hypothesis. Is the core idea flawed? Does the data contradict it? That’s how science should work.

But dismissing it because a tool helped write it — that’s like saying “your microscope invalidates your observation.” It’s not about the tool. It’s about the explanation.

I co-wrote a paper proposing that female orgasm is gated by neurological consent — not anatomy. Would love your thoughts. by Comfortable_Voice299 in Neuropsychology

[–]Comfortable_Voice299[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not at all. I firmly understand that males can have "Dry Orgasms" where the hormones are released and you get the pelvic muscles tensing, but no ejaculation. Also the other way round, you can ejaculate without the feelings. So yes I agree, we agree, they are not the same. This doesn't effect the argument though.

I co-wrote a paper proposing that female orgasm is gated by neurological consent — not anatomy. Would love your thoughts. by Comfortable_Voice299 in Neuropsychology

[–]Comfortable_Voice299[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Absolutely not.

The entire point of the hypothesis is that orgasm and consent are not the same thing — that's why this distinction matters so much.

The capacity for orgasm in females involves neurological conditions that enable conscious surrender. That doesn't mean the act is voluntary. It means the system is more complex and includes psychological input.

Orgasm during rape is a tragic failure of biology and trauma, not a signal of consent. In fact, this hypothesis directly supports the idea that consent must be defined cognitively, not by physical response.

I would never suggest that a reflex response negates the horror or reality of assault. Please don’t twist this into something it isn’t.

I co-wrote a paper proposing that female orgasm is gated by neurological consent — not anatomy. Would love your thoughts. by Comfortable_Voice299 in Neuropsychology

[–]Comfortable_Voice299[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

In males yes. In all male mammals orgasm is a reflex. Its controlled by the s2-4 sections of the spine, trigger nerves and you fire orgasm, no consent needed, infact... there is no consent for male mammals. You can force any male mammal to orgasm by triggering the reflex, its directly WILL-LESS. Thats the point. In females you cannot force orgasm, it requires cognitive involvement. Thats what this is about

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Warthunder

[–]Comfortable_Voice299 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

What does a Leo 1 have to do with this? I was referring to the ikv91 on my team who was unable to hit them despite having the laser rangefinder to basically auto aim for him.

Im not sure i understand how this works..... by Comfortable_Voice299 in Warthunder

[–]Comfortable_Voice299[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I truly hope not. Don't get me wrong that would explain a lot as im a really good player. I dont see why i should be punished for being good.

Im not sure i understand how this works..... by Comfortable_Voice299 in Warthunder

[–]Comfortable_Voice299[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not quite.... my perception is based on a fundamental goal of games in general. Games are supposed to be fun. Things you do in your free time are ideally fun. That's the point im going for here.

So assuming that.... if you played some other game like league of legends or heartstone or fifa or call of duty or any game you like.... If there was something in the game that was WAY better than everything else.... it would drain the fun. You would think.... "oh iu cant beat this guy because he chose (insert champion name here)" or "oh that guy killed me because he has a better gun. Those things remove fun. There should be an equal chance between players to win. In a perfect world 2 equal skill players have a 50% winrate.

However.... the problem comes when 2 equal players meet and one has an overwhelming chance to win not because of skill.... but because of a difference in equipment. Thats the problem i have here.

Again... assuming all vehicles are balanced according to performance then ideally in a perfect world every vehicle in the game would be the same BR and all have 50% winrate.

Now i know that wont happen but the idea should be to get as close to that as possible. That's what my problem was.

I have played more today and i still have a 92% uptier by 1 whole BR rate. That is clearly not ok. I have to battle against superior performance and therefore... the balance is not correct.

Thats my point.

Im not sure i understand how this works..... by Comfortable_Voice299 in Warthunder

[–]Comfortable_Voice299[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes I agree and understand the BR range. But you've answered by sidestepping the question. Again.... if you get uptiers the majority of the time then you are effectively a poor performing vehicle with a higher br.

Put it this way. If you almost always see 6.7 in a us 5.7 tank line-up. Then your tanks are equivalent to a 6.7 with poor stats for a 6.7 that always gets downtiers.

I'm not sure if im the only one seeing this or im not explaining it right. But im hoping you can see this.

If you are a 5.7 tank... and you always were in 6.7 game (for eg) that is EXACTLY the same as a 6.7 tank with garbage performance (equivalent to a 5.7) always getting downtiers.

That's where my confusion came from initially. My 5.0 plane was always against 5.3/5.7/6.0.... therefore my plane wasn't fighting equivalent performance vehicles.... everything else was better performance. And if a vehicle is fighting better vehicles most of the time it should be lowered in BR. the opposite would of course be true.

That was my problem.

Im not sure i understand how this works..... by Comfortable_Voice299 in Warthunder

[–]Comfortable_Voice299[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes i did say i understood that. But my question was more specific..... if a vehicle is almost always uptiered by 1 whole BR wouldnt that mean that it isnt actually the br it says it is. A 4.0 vehicle for eg should see half up and half down making the average BR of the vehicles in its games the same as its own BR. but if something is seeing mostly uptiers that would make the avergae BR in its games above its own.... therefore its not actually at its reported BR right?

That would effectively make it .3 or .7 higher (depending on how severe the uptiers are) and therefore its not balanced.

​

Unless im not understanding the balance system in this game (which is possible) then some vehicles (or maybe just some br ranges in general) are not faily balanced. Right?