I thought the upsuck hypothesis was the theory behind the female orgasm? That females who have orgasms retain more sperm. What is everyone's take on this?
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Tue, May 17, 2005 - 10:37 PMMust be the hot topic. I just read this extensive analysis of the subject in the NY Times science section just yesterday.
www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17...17orga.html
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
By DINITIA SMITH
Published: May 17, 2005
Evolutionary scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, closely tied as it is to reproduction.
But the Darwinian logic behind the female orgasm has remained elusive. Women can have sexual intercourse and even become pregnant - doing their part for the perpetuation of the species - without experiencing orgasm. So what is its evolutionary purpose?
Over the last four decades, scientists have come up with a variety of theories, arguing, for example, that orgasm encourages women to have sex and, therefore, reproduce or that it leads women to favor stronger and healthier men, maximizing their offspring's chances of survival.
But in a new book, Dr. Elisabeth A. Lloyd, a philosopher of science and professor of biology at Indiana University, takes on 20 leading theories and finds them wanting. The female orgasm, she argues in the book, "The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution," has no evolutionary function at all.
Rather, Dr. Lloyd says the most convincing theory is one put forward in 1979 by Dr. Donald Symons, an anthropologist.
That theory holds that female orgasms are simply artifacts - a byproduct of the parallel development of male and female embryos in the first eight or nine weeks of life.
In that early period, the nerve and tissue pathways are laid down for various reflexes, including the orgasm, Dr. Lloyd said. As development progresses, male hormones saturate the embryo, and sexuality is defined.
In boys, the penis develops, along with the potential to have orgasms and ejaculate, while "females get the nerve pathways for orgasm by initially having the same body plan."
Nipples in men are similarly vestigial, Dr. Lloyd pointed out.
While nipples in woman serve a purpose, male nipples appear to be simply left over from the initial stage of embryonic development.
The female orgasm, she said, "is for fun."
(excerpt)
I advise you get it while you can, the article that is ;~)
NY Times being so fussy about keeping good info around the article, graphics and links are pretty good. -
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Thu, May 19, 2005 - 12:21 AMSo are there other female animals closely related to us (or not) that have orgasms? I know its a little far fetched but I hear dolphins have sex for fun. And what about bonobo chimps, they are very promiscuous and are even observed especially among males to pleasure each other for fun ( I am taking this from a lecture by John Patton in his evolutionary psychology class). Are there any researchers out there that have observed female-female sexual stimulation among bonobos or other animals? Maybe dolphins have sex for fun but don't orgasm? -
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Sun, May 29, 2005 - 11:14 PMI've heard that too about dolphins and bonobos.
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Tue, August 30, 2005 - 9:20 AMchimps orgasm. They masturbate too. constantly. If that is not for fun, what is? I'm talking about chimps here, not bonobos.
-
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Thu, May 19, 2005 - 5:46 PMInteresting article. I think I agree with her. Orgasms are not necessarily connected with intercourse. . .in fact some women I know get far more intense one without the need for penetration.
Certainly something to talk about . . . -
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Fri, May 20, 2005 - 1:10 PMI think a more important point that's been made in the article is this: all past studies were flawed due the samples having been made with the assumption of sex being a heterosexual only phenomenon. I bet if they included more than just heterosexual subjects, that the results would be incongruent and inconsistent. No point could be made from any of the studies.
If indeed the orgasm in women are just vestigial (from the fetus stage), then sex may have only a minor or inconsequential part in it. Some of us may simply have more or less of the vestigial variations. Though this brings up an interesting mystery: are all sexual constructs simply from the fetus state - where we are not yet men or women? -
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Fri, May 20, 2005 - 3:14 PMYeah but surely there is more involved physiologically with orgasms than a nipple. What is the purpose of male orgasms? Does it have to correspond to ejaculation and if so why? I dont know. -
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Fri, May 20, 2005 - 4:33 PMAccording to the article, the male nipple is vestigial because its physiological response does not serve a direct purpose. For a female there is a purpose (I'm guessing here): When breast feeding, the mother may be gaining an emotional connection to her offspring via that response as well - thereby assuring the survival of that offspring and essentially assuring the survival of the species.
Now a male orgasm, (I'm making a guess here as well) may facilitate the proper force necessary to assure that sperm hit its target. It's my understanding that an orgasm is essentially similar to epileptic fit, which may be directing all energy from the body to that specific task. Perhaps it may even serve as a defense mechanism against other males in the vicinity - again to assure the survival of the species.
Like the nipple on the male, the female clitoris may also be a vestigial remnant of a penis. It might be safe to assume that an orgasm in a female may be the same. That seems to be what the author is implying. I am certain that the author is not belittling the mystery of a female orgasm, or a sensitive male nipple, but rather be making a point that it might be too easy to imply purpose to physiological functions (esp. with flawed data).
Like what the heck is the reason for all those glands in our body that seem to do nothing - are they vestigial remnants of a sponge? -
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Fri, May 20, 2005 - 4:43 PMoops. I missed an important point.
I meant "...it might be too easy to imply [an evolutionary] purpose to physiological functions (esp. with flawed data). -
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Fri, May 20, 2005 - 6:54 PMTrue. It sure is interesting, I hear Pfizer and the ED companies are shooting for a pill for women. It should be interesting. I wonder what their scientists think about this.
-
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Sat, May 21, 2005 - 1:42 PM>>Like the nipple on the male, the female clitoris may also be a vestigial remnant of a penis.<<
Back in college, I took a psychology of sex and gender and one of the things that came up is the idea that all fetuses are female until about six weeks of age. At that point, all fetuses have the same "buds" that will eventually develop into one set of genitals or another, based on whether there's a presence or absence of testosterone. It's the androgens that turn on the switch for boys. I remember seeing illustrations of the buds and subsequent development for each of the sexes. I could see how specific parts are analogous (i.e. the clitoris corresponds to the tip of the penis).
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Sat, May 21, 2005 - 1:15 PMSociobiology has always been weird. Historically it usually perpetuated dominant social biases and naturalized/rationalized existing power relations. The philosophy/history of science movement has provided some accountability over the past 15 years, but the juncture of social & biological science is still problematic. It sounds like evolutionary-genetics is the new old skool (pre-Haraway et al.) primatology. I find it hard to agree w/ Dr. Lloyd's notion that women are essentially failed men, passive vessels, etc. Lacanian lack anyone? :)
From the perspective of cultural anthropology, I'd say that female orgasm, male orgasm and sex (procreative and esp. non-procreative) in general are about forging social relationships, and cannot be reduced to the absolute calculus of reproduction. To put it another way, Dr. Lloyd gives short shift to "fun," discounting the evolutionary impact of social behaviors & cultural expressions. -
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Sat, May 21, 2005 - 1:47 PM>>From the perspective of cultural anthropology, I'd say that female orgasm, male orgasm and sex (procreative and esp. non-procreative) in general are about forging social relationships, and cannot be reduced to the absolute calculus of reproduction.<<
That's exactly part of Dr. Helen Fisher's explanation as to the purpose. I keep meaning to check out some of her books, as I find her interesting to listen to. She gets interviewed pretty regularly for various documentaries see on Discovery Channel, et al.
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Sun, May 29, 2005 - 11:24 PMI thinks you're right. Social interaction is HUGE. In the wild, it takes approximately 12 years to raise human offspring into maturity. The bonding aspect of human sexuality I think makes it a lot easier for a pair bond to make sure their offspring make it.
-
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Thu, June 22, 2006 - 2:56 AMThere's an excellent scientific e-book on the subject of the practical rather than theoretical female orgasm.
It's written by Dr Irene Cooper, a professional sex therapist in the UK and you can find it and other resources at:
<a href="www.femaleorgasmz.com" name="My Female Orgasm">My Female Orgasm</a>
<a href="femaleorgazm.blogspot.com" name="Linda">Linda</a>
-
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Thu, May 19, 2005 - 12:54 PMI favor the idea that female orgasms are a way of giving privelege to sperm which are deposited by male specimens of choice. In the natural world, plenty of sperm gets deposited without much involvement by females in the mate selection process, but females do tend to prefer certain males. Linking positive mate-related affect to sperm facilitation would be an advantageous adaptation, assuming females prefer the right males. -
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Fri, May 20, 2005 - 8:05 AMI don't have any links/sources... but i remember from years ago, hearing from a biology professor that there have been studies done (including pheremone sniffing, visual tests, and more) that show that women tend to prefer sensitive men most of the time (who hypothetically would be good for taking care of children), but when they are fertile they prefer strong, more aggressive men (good for making children). -
-
Re: Of Peacocks & Nestminders
Sat, May 21, 2005 - 12:48 PMThere is a study associated/affiliated with the U of Chicago, possibly NORC (done in the 50s or 60s?). I have yet to find the citation for it. If I remember correctly, the study found a disparity btwn. actual vs. publicly stated paternity in either 1/5 or 2/5 cases! If correct, this would mean that every 1 or 2 people in 5 do not have the biological father they think they do. The study's hypothesis was that there are, ahem, peacocky men and nestmindery men. The former was preferred for torrid sexual passion during ovulation, the latter for marriage. Supposedly the peacocky men increased gene pool diversity, while the nestmindery men could be relied upon to help take care of the kids. Does this hypothesis have some actual evolutionary validity? Like most socio-biology it's rife with disciplinary and cultural bias. I find it entertaining.
-The pheromone sniff tests determined that women preferred men who were not too closely or too distantly related to them (there was nothing mentioned about the perception of man sensitivity in that particular study). -
-
Re: Of Peacocks & Nestminders
Mon, May 23, 2005 - 12:40 AMI don't think "sensitive" was exactly the word I mean... and now that you remind me of what the pheromone test determined, here is my revised statement:
I believe it was a visual-based study of men's faces and women's preferences of "gruffer" or "softer" faces based on where the women were in their cycles/ovulation. The women tended to prefer the more "masculine" features while fertile and "feminine" featured faces when not. -
-
Re: Of Peacocks & Nestminders
Mon, May 23, 2005 - 12:41 AMOn another note, its not uncommon for women to be attracted to men whose armpits are at the woman's nose height. -
-
Re: Of Peacocks & Nestminders
Mon, May 23, 2005 - 11:08 AMWasn't that the discredited K.P.R. (Kinsey Pit Report), which allegedly found that a majority of heterosexual women preferred mates with a mean arm pit height between that of their father's and maternal grandfather's armpit height. However, there was no correlation if the respondent's paternal grandfather had dabbled in metrosexualism or been near a giraffe. -
-
Re: Of Peacocks & Nestminders
Mon, May 23, 2005 - 11:37 AMLOL
Oh yeah, the old Metrosexual Giraffe Deviation. It gets you every time. -
-
Re: Of Peacocks & Nestminders
Wed, May 25, 2005 - 7:21 AMsorry to change issue to a certain extent. What does female orgasm have to do with the increased possibility to become pregnant? Do these scientists analyse the cases of rapes ending up with pregnancy before drafting up these conclusions?
Just wondering... -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Of Peacocks & Nestminders
Wed, May 25, 2005 - 3:09 PMPart of the point of the article, and some of the point of the author, is that women can get pregnant regardless if they have an orgasm or not.
That is why the assumptions that inspired the original surveys and theories might be incorrect - that a women’s orgasm has an evolutionary and biological function that aids and assists in reproduction on a selective level.
Pregnancy from rape would fall into that category of pregnancy w/o biological assistance (most notably a lack of, or inability to use a brain and/or a heart).
So no, you are not changing the subject - your question is quite relevant. -
-
Re: Of Peacocks & Nestminders
Mon, May 30, 2005 - 11:02 AM>Pregnancy from rape would fall into that category
This assumes that orgasm cannot occur during rape.
One might like to think that it never would, but I understand there is some anecdotal evidence...
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Of Peacocks & Nestminders
Wed, May 25, 2005 - 7:26 PM>>What does female orgasm have to do with the increased possibility to become pregnant?<<
From a biological perspective, female orgasm makes it easier for the uterus to come into contact with sperm.
-
-
-
-
Re: Of Peacocks & Nestminders
Fri, September 23, 2005 - 6:58 AMand what about men who are attracted to men whose armpits are at their nose height?
that must be vestigal too. = )
-
-
-
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Thu, October 20, 2005 - 5:19 PMWhen breast feeding, the mother may be gaining an emotional connection to her offspring via that response as well - thereby assuring the survival of that offspring and essentially assuring the survival of the species.
And do not forget the childs pleasure in sucking from the breast. have seen the most rascally smiles of p leasure from infants whose mother's refuse to wean them.
i think excessive or even 'normal' breast feeding ties the child to home..or that is would sensitize them...too much and the child would be crippled emotionally.
As for orgasam...there is the vaginal and there is the cliteral and they are quite different. There are some women who climax over nothing and require no forplay from men and other women who need initiation and trust and stroking. But how many dissatisfied wives i have heard complain of 'strong' husbands who could keep it up for hours and never touch the and refuse to please them blaming the woman for her lack of climax.
yes it is a profound human social thing to have men and women yield to one another.
Also i have heard that the vibration from their male sperm lasts 9 years in the female. Yherefor auras and subtle energies are involved in mating.
i think minds are sexy not bodies. Bud drinking construction workers leave me cold but way out scientists and thinkers turn me on.
However i have at times noticed a completer turn in myself where a Chez Guavara can turn me on. Even though i stand agasinst war and killing a mighty warrior ...need i say more....
Evolution is more than bodies. Evolution is a spiritual awakening ie the end of superstition........and respect fo women.
There is something going on called the feminization of men. I think the creation of so many homosexuals is due not to women becoming stronger but the rules and expectations and belittling useless laws tha promote behavior that kills the will and muddles true thought.
-
-
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Sat, May 28, 2005 - 4:27 PMI'd like to second the post below, from the published and unpublished research I've seen ( and my personal experience) intercourse (penetration) isn't necessarily the easiest or most effective route to female orgasm, sexual intercouse and orgasm do not seem to correlate for many women, so I think some of these theories are based on assumptions which should be examined more carefully. -
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Sun, May 29, 2005 - 11:28 PMYou're a man? And you understand this? Wow. I think hell just froze over. : ) -
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Mon, May 30, 2005 - 12:33 PMIt was taught to me by another man - Victor Baranco - and it was not something that I was able to hear or understand the first time I heard it.
-
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Mon, May 30, 2005 - 11:00 AM> sexual intercouse and orgasm do not seem to correlate for many women,
The data on this are from the United States, aren't they? -
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Mon, May 30, 2005 - 12:49 PMThe data I know best is from the US.
Are you aware of data from other areas? -
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Mon, May 30, 2005 - 3:07 PMI have no hard data from elsewhere.
I just happen to know anecdotally that while most American women say they prefer the circumised penis, many have not really made a real comparison. If there's a darwinian advantage to inducing female orgasms, one would think millions of years of penis evolution would have got it right by now... no?
-
-
-
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Sun, May 29, 2005 - 11:31 PMYou guys should check out Sex, Time, and Power by leonard Shlain. Anthropology is his passtime. He's a surgeon by trade, but he does bring up some interesting points. -
-
It's the genes
Tue, June 7, 2005 - 9:58 PMSo all the stories about twins have some validity now.
Genes key to women's ability to reach orgasm -study
news.yahoo.com/news
By Patricia Reaney
Tue Jun 7, 7:16 PM ET
LONDON (Reuters) - Women who have difficulty reaching orgasm can blame it on their genes.
Like heart disease, anxiety and depression, scientists discovered in a study of 1,397 pairs of female twins that there is a genetic basis to female orgasm.
"We found that between 34 percent and 45 percent of the variation in ability to orgasm can be explained by underlying genetic variation," said Tim Spector, of the Twin Research Unit at St Thomas' Hospital in London.
"There is a biological underlying influence that can't be attributed purely to upbringing, religion or race," he added.
Other studies have attributed differences in the ability to achieve orgasm to cultural, religious and psychological factors.
Between 12-15 percent of women don't have orgasms compared to about 2 percent of men. Males are also quicker at 2.5 minutes, while the average time it takes for a woman to reach orgasm is 12 minutes, according to Spector.
"Why is there this biological difference between the sexes? The fact that some of this is heritable suggests that evolution has a role," he told a news conference.
Spector suggested reaching an orgasm could be a way for women to assess whether a man would make a good long-term partner. It may also increase fertility, according to some theories. In a study of identical and non-identical twins published on Wednesday in the journal Biology Letters, Spector and his team found huge variations when they surveyed them about sexual problems.
One in three women, or 32 percent, said they never or infrequently had an orgasm. But 14 percent said they always had an orgasm during intercourse.
"More women were able to orgasm during masturbation, with 34 percent always reaching orgasm," the researchers said in the journal.
The frequency of orgasm was higher for identical twins with a partner and by themselves which suggests a clear genetic impact, said Spector.
"There is something biological that explains some of this large variation between women," he said, adding that many genes could be involved.
If scientists could discover which genes and how they function, it could potentially pave the way for future therapies to treat women who cannot reach orgasm.
But Spector said orgasm is a very complex process which is poorly understood. Little research has been done because it is still a taboo subject.
Anatomical and biological features and psychological factors may all play a part.
-
-
Re: It's the genes
Wed, June 8, 2005 - 8:09 AMI'd be hard pressed to think *anything* about us or our path through this planet isn't to a greater or lesser extent, dependant on our genes. I'm endlessly surprized at teh way non scientists who write these articles seem to act as if this were surprizing.
But I'm also surprized to see the opening line assert that genes *are* the cause, not just one of many causes.
And yes, as i said on another board, it's a strange wednesday and i'm finding myself rambling today. forgive me. :-) -
-
Re: It's the genes
Mon, July 11, 2005 - 4:02 PMI am finding it difficult to see what the correlation is between twins and the study findings? I myself am a twin with a man. Did that have some unknown effect on my body that caused me to be able to ejaculate during orgasm? Perhaps I kept more male hormones? Could also explain my more masculine emotional response patterns that have been a constant my whole life. -
-
Re: It's the genes
Tue, July 12, 2005 - 4:58 AMShekina they are referring to *Identical Twins* not fraternal ones for genetic interpretations.
No matter how much you and and your twin brother are similar you are not mirror copies genetically because you represent two distinctly separate fertilized eggs that developed simultaneously in the same womb according to how we understand the formation of fraternal twins.
While without knowing more than is really possible to discuss here I suggest that in your case the there is probably more about nurture than nature involved in the masculinazation of your experience.
Though I would be curious if there is a higher occurrence of Klinefelter's Syndrome among fraternal twins?
That would be an interesting study onto itself and also to find out if there is a female expressed variant of a similar genetic condition.
www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplu.../000382.htm
www.aaa.dk/TURNER/ENGELSK/KLINEN.HTM
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Female Orgasm?
Sat, July 16, 2005 - 5:00 PM>>I thought the upsuck hypothesis was the theory behind the female orgasm? That females who have orgasms retain more sperm. What is everyone's take on this?<<
What if the climax results in ejaculation? Wouldn't that flush more semen out?