A few weeks ago the NYTimes Science Times 5/17/05 had an article about whether there is any Darwinian logic behind female orgasm.
It seems that it’s just a vestige of the extensive nerve pathways fetuses get before their gender is determined. The females are left with all these nerves good for nothing, but with the side effect of orgasm.
Like nipples in males–added at the factory before gender was determined. Male nipples are good for nothing, but with the side effect of another body part to pierce for a gold ring.
Your thoughts?
I was going to post this as a poll… Can you imagine?
Bugman is right. Procreation had to be made into a pleasureable experience, otherwise, no one would have any motivation to do it. With no motivation, there is no sex, and no kids. No kids means no more humans.
Bugman is not right. This is all opinion of course, but here’s why:
The majority of women (somewhere over 60%) cannot experience orgasm from sexual intercourse. So much for the procreation argument. If all people did was have sex to procreate, women most would never find out orgasms were possible. Many never do. In fact, I know a woman in her mid-40s, who grew up in this country, and only just found out the “details.”
Only the males need to enjoy sex for the species to be preserved. Same for most species. Not really fair in any way, but true.
If you believe procreation was “made” into a pleasurable experience, shouldn’t most women’s sensitive parts be “made” a little closer to the action in intercourse? The parts generally don’t line up.
Back to the original post:
Darwinian logic? Darwin’s theories do not propose things are “designed” for a reason. Just better odds of survival for the “fitter” species. We men have mammary glands too. But they don’t seem to get in the way too much…
We don’t need pleasure to procreate. Only humans and dolphins get pleasure from sex. We just need a little more primal instinct and it wouldn’t be necassary.
Except men & women feel similar experiences, so it can’t be a female thing. And despite the fact that sex (at least from a procreative point of view) only has to be pleasureable for the male, women seem to get the better deal (more erogenous zones, and multiple climaxes…)
An interesting discussion has begun here, which has been rather scarce of late.
Is it that humans and dolphins are the only ones that get pleasure from sex? I was under the belief that they were the only ones that had sex for pleasure.
I should not have said that sex was made to be pleasurable, but it is possible that it occured through evolution because the women that found sex to be pleasurable were more likely to perform it at will.
Actually durring female orgasm the muscular contractions associated with orgasms pull sperm from the vagina to the cervix, where it’s in better position to reach the egg. If a woman climaxes up until 45 minutes after male ejaculation, she will retain significantly more sperm than she does after non-orgasmic sex.
Therefore better lovers will have more kids, and I should be absolutly sure to wear a condom.
This is known as the Baker-Bellis argument, proposed in 1993, and has been called fatally flawed because their sample size is too small.
IF you believe it, though, the Baker-Bellis argument also asserted that a woman is more likely to have an orgasm when she has sexual intercourse with a man other than her regular sexual partner. They postulated that women seek other partners to obtain better genes for their offspring.
