If you extrapolate over your lifetime and calculate an average duration, how much of your conscious life has actually been spent in orgasm?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen asks Rick Rosner to quantify orgasm time across a lifetime. Rosner estimates 15,000–17,000 orgasms at five seconds each, totaling about one day of life. They explore the hypothetical of prolonged orgasmic activation and note medical risks, referencing priapism as an example of dangerous dysregulation. The conversation shifts to folklore about Viagra manufacturing “love fumes,” contrasted with Pfizer’s denials and a Newsweek report framed as humor. They then examine double standards in sexual talk, distinguish speech from misconduct, and connect scandals and technology to evolving norms, consent, and accountability. Rosner argues ethics hinge on consent, power, and context.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Here is the question. You have roughly tracked how many times you have had an orgasm?

Rick Rosner: I have a general estimate, yes.

Jacobsen: If you extrapolate over your lifetime and calculate an average duration, how much of your conscious life has actually been spent in orgasm? It is an interesting thought experiment.

Rosner: Not much, proportionally. If I estimate approximately 15,000 to 17,000 occurrences over several decades, and assume an average duration of about five seconds each, that totals roughly 85,000 seconds. Converting that, it comes to about 1,400 minutes—just under a full 24-hour day. So, across an entire lifetime, it amounts to about one day.

Jacobsen: Imagine what it would be like if the brain were activated in that state continuously for twenty hours.

Rosner: That would likely be medically dangerous. Sustained physiological overstimulation could lead to severe strain, pain, or cardiovascular stress. The human body is not designed for prolonged activation of that system.

There are medical conditions related to prolonged arousal. For example, priapism is a condition in which an erection persists for an abnormally long time and can require emergency treatment to prevent tissue damage. It is not the same as continuous orgasm, but it illustrates how dysregulation of blood flow can become dangerous.

Jacobsen: That is a medical problem.

Rosner: Yes. Some television dramas have depicted such cases in emergency-room settings. Treatment can involve draining excess blood to relieve pressure, because the condition results from blood becoming trapped in erectile tissue.

Jacobsen: It is remarkable how certain medications were discovered. Sildenafil, the drug later marketed as Viagra, was initially researched for cardiovascular conditions before its side effects were recognized as therapeutically useful for erectile dysfunction. 

Rosner: It has been manufactured in Ireland, among other places, and there is a long-running local joke about “love fumes” from the factory. Pfizer has described those stories as myths. They are part of local folklore rather than evidence-based phenomena.

Jacobsen: You could test that indirectly by surveying people in the region.

Rosner: There was a 2017 Newsweek article titled “Viagra Factory Fumes Are Giving Men Erections, Residents of Irish Town Claim.” It reported on local jokes surrounding the Pfizer manufacturing plant in County Cork.

Jacobsen: Don’t you wish it were true?

Rosner: The article quoted a local bartender who joked, “One whiff and you’re stiff.” It was clearly presented as humour and folklore. Pfizer has consistently described the story as a myth. There is no scientific evidence supporting the idea that factory emissions have that effect. It is an amusing piece of local lore.

Jacobsen: It is funny.

Rosner: Yes.

Jacobsen: You mentioned Carole gets tired of these conversations.

Rosner: She prefers not to hear extended discussions about sexuality.

Jacobsen: That raises an interesting cultural point. Women sometimes discuss sexual topics among themselves quite openly. When men do the same, it is often perceived as crude or inappropriate. Why do you think that is?

Rosner: It can come across as intrusive or unsettling depending on tone, context, and audience. Social norms shape how identical content is interpreted based on who is speaking. Perception matters.

Jacobsen: There is a double standard.

Rosner: Context is everything. Conversations about sexuality are not inherently harmful, but they should be situationally appropriate.

Jacobsen: You mentioned major scandals.

Rosner: The #MeToo movement was founded in 2006 by activist Tarana Burke to support survivors of sexual violence. It gained global prominence in 2017 after Alyssa Milano encouraged people to share their experiences publicly. Since then, multiple high-profile cases have emerged, including those of Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein, both involving allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation. These cases have had a lasting cultural and legal impact.

Jacobsen: Some argue that earlier scandals also had long political consequences.

Rosner: The Clinton–Lewinsky scandal of the late 1990s significantly shaped American politics. Some analysts argue that its political fallout influenced subsequent elections and public trust in institutions. That interpretation remains debated, but the episode clearly marked a turning point in media, politics, and public discourse.

Rosner: The key distinction here is that conversation itself is not the same as misconduct. A discussion may be uncomfortable for one person, amusing for another, and neutral for someone else. There is no automatic link between open conversation and criminal behaviour.

Jacobsen: Correct. Speech and conduct are distinct. Ethical responsibility hinges on actions—consent, power dynamics, legality—not merely on whether a topic is discussed. Context, intent, and behaviour determine harm.

Rosner: To put it bluntly, private behaviour conducted responsibly causes less harm than misconduct carried into public life. The issue is not sexuality itself, but ethics, consent, and power.

We have seen major political consequences linked to sexual scandals. During the Clinton presidency, impeachment proceedings did not significantly reduce his approval ratings. However, some analysts argue that the scandal affected Al Gore’s 2000 campaign strategy, particularly his limited public association with Clinton despite Clinton’s strong popularity at the time. Gore ultimately lost a very close election, and interpretations vary as to how much the scandal influenced that outcome.

In 2016, then–FBI Director James Comey announced shortly before the election that the Bureau was reviewing additional emails related to Hillary Clinton. That development stemmed from a separate investigation involving Anthony Weiner. The review ultimately did not result in charges, but the timing of the announcement remains controversial. Some political scientists estimate that late shifts in voter perception may have influenced a narrow election margin, though the precise electoral impact is debated.

Sexual misconduct, media coverage, and institutional responses have clearly shaped political outcomes in modern U.S. history. Whether they were decisive factors is a matter of ongoing analysis.

Culturally, patterns of sexual behaviour appear to be shifting. Research indicates that members of Generation Z report lower rates of sexual activity compared to some previous cohorts at similar ages. Explanations range from increased digital engagement to economic pressures and changing social norms.

As technology becomes more integrated into daily life, intimacy patterns may evolve. It is plausible that mediated experiences, virtual environments, or algorithmic matching systems will increasingly shape relationships. That does not mean in-person relationships will disappear, but their social context may continue to change.

In fiction, these shifts create interesting narrative possibilities. For example, a future setting might involve intermediaries who facilitate connections between highly vetted, consenting adults within strict ethical frameworks. Such a system would require safeguards to prevent exploitation or abuse. If social norms evolve, education around consent, emotional intelligence, and interpersonal conduct would become even more important.

Sexuality is not disappearing; it is adapting alongside technology and culture. The important variables remain consent, transparency, agency, and accountability.

Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is a Writer-Editor for www.rickrosner.org with more than 2,000 collaborative short-form and long-form interviews with Rick Rosner. He is the Founder and Publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343; 978-1-0673505) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN, 0018-7399; Online: ISSN, 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), Humanist Perspectives (ISSN: 1719-6337), A Further Inquiry (SubStack), Vocal, Medium, The Good Men Project, The New Enlightenment Project, The Washington Outsider, rabble.ca, and other media. His bibliography index can be found via the Jacobsen Bank at In-Sight Publishing. He has served in national and international leadership roles within humanist and media organizations, held several academic fellowships, and currently serves on several boards. He is a member in good standing in numerous media organizations, including the Canadian Association of Journalists, PEN Canada (CRA: 88916 2541 RR0001), and Reporters Without Borders (SIREN: 343 684 221/SIRET: 343 684 221 00041/EIN: 20-0708028), and others.

Photo by Oleg Ivanov on Unsplash

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.