Comments on: Ooh, Ooh, Eee: Orgasm Science

By: Jedmunds

Jedmunds — Wed, 18 May 2005 05:00:41 +0000

What’s confusing about the article is the reporter’s use of the term “evolutionary purpose.” I, like many of you, am not some kind of expert in biology, but I remember learning that you don’t think of evolution as having a purpose, really. Certain traits make a species more likely to survive, and those traits are passed on, as we all know, while others disappear. For instance, males that get pleasure from ejaculation are more likely to pass on their genes, for obvious reasons. It seems to me that females who are capable of sexual pleasure are also more likely to procreate, though it’s also not essential. But again, I’m not some kind of biologist or something, so I’m probably missing something. But I’d bet good money the reporter did a lousy job on this story, as journalists tend to do, routinely.

By: Quisp

Quisp — Wed, 18 May 2005 01:24:35 +0000

I’m amazed by how many scientists casually reduce evolution to functionalism.

Real scientists? What you’re referring to, I believe, is Lamarckism, the pre-darwin theory of use and disuse. i.e. if you lift weights, your children will inherit your big muscles; if you don’t use your brain, your children won’t have any, etc.. Courtney Love believes in Lamarckism, as she indicated when she said she got plastic surgery because she didn’t want her kids to have ugly noses.

Re the female orgasm (and forgive me if this point is buried somewhere in these comments), isn’t it possible that evolution has provided a spectrum of different degrees and intensities of female orgasm in the population and the jury on whether it provides any survival advantage is still out. In other words, we might well be in the middle of the experiment, at least as far as survivability goes.

By: michelle

michelle — Wed, 18 May 2005 00:49:21 +0000

Now that I think about it, neither orgasm nor male nipples can be vestigal, because that would require them to have been functional – in a different way than now – at some distant point in the past. Right? Like males used to breast-feed or something.

Cosmo doesn’t scare me! If we’ve had orgasms (and nipples) this long, we’re not going to lose them any time soon! At least not until we all evolve into beings of pure mental energy ;-)

I know what my orgasm is for, and I’m sure Dr. Lloyd does too. And it’s not reproduction *wink*

Drifting…

Speaking of male nipples – my boyfriend finds that stimulation of his is simply not arousing (at best ticklish – he’s a very ticklish guy everywhere). He insists that it’s not the same for him as it is for me, and that guys just don’t feel anything there. I wonder if he isn’t repressing a little because, subconsciously, he believe’s it’s “girly” and thus icky. Simliar to the way that guys don’t perceive their bare chests as erotic. Any thoughts?

The “upsuck” theory – that one really annoys me. My boyfriend has been a believer in it ever since he saw it suggested on one of those Discovery sex shows. Which is embarassing to admit because I thought he was a smart guy =P That theory is so implausible as to be laughable.

By: Lauren

Lauren — Tue, 17 May 2005 21:48:19 +0000

I can’t wait to see the Cosmo headline: “Get over it, girls! Orgasms are so 2004!”

By: Amanda

Amanda — Tue, 17 May 2005 21:39:24 +0000

Eh, even if it’s on its way out that doesn’t mean that anyone’s gonna take it from me.

By: feministing

feministing — Tue, 17 May 2005 20:38:21 +0000

Leave us alone

And go check out these other fab ladies: Echidne on the Politics of Women’s Health. Pandagon for an update on Tennessee’s spousal rape bill. Feministe on Orgasm Science. (Turns out the female orgasm could have no evolutionary purpose–it’s just for…

By: debitage

debitage — Tue, 17 May 2005 17:30:06 +0000

Anthropology Infringing On Biology

– via feministe

I’m no biologist, so I can’t offer an opinion on the scientific validity of the claim that the female orgasm is a by-product of the evolution of the male orgasm rather than being directly selected for*. But I can comment on the tw…

By: djw

djw — Tue, 17 May 2005 15:37:51 +0000

Here’s something that baffles me:

Some researchers have argued the female orgasm so unnecessary as to be on its way out.

Whaaa….? Let’s concede the point–the female orgasm is, in an evolutionary sense, an artifact, and it serves no (mechanical) purpose. As others point out, there are other ways to think about the purpose it might serve. But whatever. Let’s assume it’s useless from a scientfic standpoint.

Why would that mean it’s on it’s way out? That seems like a tendentious and overly functionalist way of interpreting evolutionary logic. Evolution suggests that traits that help you survive are likely to persist because survivors are more likely to have offspring. Similarly, traits that create a disadvantage for survival purposes are likely to go away.

What evolution doesn’t imply, I don’t think, is that anything in particular is likely to happen to those with traits that are irrelevant for survival one way or the other. Which is probably a lot of traits. I’m amazed by how many scientists casually reduce evolution to functionalism. It’s a little functionalism and a fair bit of artifactualism too. Why do we still have appendixes? etc.

But I love the message. Women: enjoy it while you can! Evolution won’t let you get away with this non-functional pleasure much longer!

By: Sarah

Sarah — Tue, 17 May 2005 15:19:21 +0000

I agree with Monjo that the female orgasm is about social bonding, and I wonder if it’s particularly to do with inter-female bonding when two or more females need to bond in a group for raising young. Certainly there are many species where the offspring are raised by the bioogical mother and other females, and this is a lot more common than the “nuclear family” type arrangement.

As Lloyd said in her book, the idea of the female orgasm being for male/female pair bonding makes no sense. Also there would have to be a big assumption that male-female pair bonds are a natural thing for humans, and that they confer some evolutionary advantage. There’s not a great deal of evidence for that, and just because that’s the way our society is usually arranged today, doesn’t mean it’s always been that way.

By: theorajones

theorajones — Tue, 17 May 2005 13:56:37 +0000

Hi, the male orgasm isn’t particularly important, either.

Male ejaculation is very important evolutionarily. But the “ohmigod, this feels GREAT” of orgasm? Not evolutionarily necessary.

Funny, though, that it’s woman’s pleasure that’s got to be understood (ah, it serves no purpose–clearly a frill) while we blindly accept the idea that male pleasure was a biological necessity. The necessity is ejaculation–the rest of it is just a frill…