To Orgasm Or Not?
Now Echidne has finally gone over the edge. What does this topic have to do with American politics? In one sentence: everything and nothing. Sexual politics underlie most other types of politics, and in that sense an orgasm is as important as a filibuster. Can we have them, please? That is, us women. On the other hand, orgasms are like hickups and have no political meaning whatsoever. Except that nobody is interested in hickups.
A silly little story reported by World O’Crap pretends to be a scientific analysis of the female orgasm, but it isn’t, of course. Scientists can speculate and speculate on this interesting topic, but the truth is that it’s all just speculation. Here is a taste of it:
Why, o why? It’s been 52 years since scientists first considered the female orgasm a legitimate object of scrutiny (thank you, Dr. Kinsey). But they still can’t settle on its raison d’être. Theories abound on how this intensely pleasurable pelvic reflex — which is overwhelmingly, though not exclusively, enjoyed by humans (a few other female primates can climax) — contributes to the survival of our species. And because each explanation affects how we think about “natural” female sexuality and relations between the sexes, feminists have been eager participants in these debates. But most evolutionists — feminist or not — aren’t keen to embrace the idea that the female climax could be entirely without evolutionary benefit. No matter how obsessively and doggedly pursued in the bedroom, it may be as frivolous as, say, the male nipple.
Who says that the male nipple is “frivolous”? Quite a few men I know would disagree. The nipple can be an erogenic zone for both sexes, and it’s even possible for a man to lactate under certain (though very unusual) conditions. But whatever one might think about the male nipple, this sentence in the above quote shows how silly the quasi-scientific argument supposedly presented here really is:
No matter how obsessively and doggedly pursued in the bedroom, it may be as frivolous as, say, the male nipple.
It seems to me that anything doggedly pursued in the bedroom can’t but help in the survival of the species. But what do I know?
April 30th, 2005 at 11:29 am
The survival value of women’s orgasms is pretty clear. They have to be built to like sex, because pregnancy doesn’t always happen on the first try. And it’s probably helpful on the average to have an extra adult around, so it would be a problem if the male was an annoyance (or worse) making the woman do something she didn’t also want to do. Even though men are bigger, women could always club them in their sleep.
Unless the women were kept tied up all the time, I guess. . . . Possibly this is where Republicans came from.
April 30th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
Well, this is the old struggle between adaptationists (every trait MUST be for some survival value) and more sophisticated evolutionary biologists (it may or may not be - let’s try to study this before we start believing Just o Stories).
If a trait is connected to sex or gender, it is always a good idea to consider sexual selection as well.
Men have nipples because it may be difficult to get rid of them during development (the development may be too “canalized”), and, since there is no cost (e.g., energy needed to develop and maintain them) there is no evolutionary pressure to get rid of them. The fact that some men derive pleasure from stumulation of nipples is an evolutionary accident - too unimportant to be strongly selected against, yet not important enough to be strongly selected for.
Female orgasm mey or may not be in the same category. First question to ask is: what is the function of orgasm in BOTH sexes? All male animals ejaculate, but very few species have powerful orgasms (or orgasms at all). Why do human MEN have orgasms? So they fall asleep afterwards instead of wandering off? Just a semi-plausible story - as plausible as any other for the adaptive function of both male and female orgasm. Telling plausible stories is fun, and may lead to testable hypotheses, but is not, in itself, science.
Yet I agree (gosh, my whole blog is about arguing this) that the conservative ideology is, pretty much, reducible to sex: all political stances are a result of fear which is a result of sexual anxiety, which is a result of atrocious child-rearing (as you, on your blog, as well as Archy, Arse Poetica, Pam’s House Blend, me and some others have documented on our blogs recently).
April 30th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
Listen pal: We are a utilitarian society with utilitarian values. Everything must be useful to be accepted, like baseball playoffs and Twinkies. And ice cream. I know plenty of women who say, frankly, ice cream is more pleasurable over time than orgasm. Particularly Ben and Jerry’s.
April 30th, 2005 at 3:23 pm
More musings:
1. I admit my comment was speculative and not, in itself, science. (You will notice I am not even wearing my lab coat.) I do understand that men probably have nipples mostly because there’s no good reason for them not to.
2. How do we know if animals orgasm or not? Have you even asked them?
3. I am not too excited about my nipples, but then no woman has ever paid too much attention to them,so possibly I am missing out.
4. I fully support both nipples and oprgasms, useless or not.
April 30th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
Careful guys, this could be a trap. Anything pursued doggedly style that contributes to female orgasm can lead to all manner of gutwrenching outcomes. Marriage, for example. Compulsive lying about new hairdos and ass sizes in the new muu-muus she buys. And an IQ lowering that leads to you calling her your shoogum boogum noogums.
And when they discover what a Hitachi Magic Wand can do, it pretty much lowers our value to that of a spider squasher. Beware, brother, beware. If word gets out that female orgasms are real, the whole damn patriarchy will rest on your Visa credit limit alone.
That’s why it’s especially important to teach your mate that male on female oral sex causes kidney stones in the gal. Because once you get her started, there’s no turning her off. It’s dangerous like nuclear science, so leave it to the scientists, because they don’t care if they ever get laid.
April 30th, 2005 at 4:08 pm
Indeed, science is hard to do, especially about human sexuality.
Science writing must be difficult as well, because it is so rare that an article can get
anything coherent to present that is reflective of science. misquotes and jumping to
conclusions seems the norm often.
Ice cream could be a product that plays off our ancestror’s need to get proper nutrition.
Sugar and fat may not always have been so plentiful, and the survivors tended to gorge
themselves when encountering it. Maybe, as the evolutionary argument goes.
Nutrition is important. why should it not be pleasurable?
I might also add that females of other species going into heat was not mentioned.
I don’t think frivolity comes into that example. Orgasm might be a strategy that is
intimately involved with OUR species, that has babies who are defenseless for years,
who need much training, and who probably do survive better when the male sticks
around to provide nutrition, the longer ther better. Unlike many species that go into heat,
when the males childrearing is essentially over.
and to coturnix, to clarify, sexual selection would mean orgasmic women have more
sex/babies? and your comment
the conservative ideology is, pretty much, reducible to sex: all political stances are a result of fear which is a result of sexual anxiety, which is a result of atrocious child-rearing.
This is not clear. Is this the conservative ideology making assertions about ALL POLITICAL STANCES and thier
connection with atrocious child rearing? Or is this your assertion?
Also, humans being promiscuous (and sneaky) is also sexual selection.
I read years ago about a study of parent and baby blood types was done for whatever reason I don’t remember. The interesting science was that %10 of the babies had a blood type from some other man. How many fathers are so cynical/conservative/Republican to demand the tests? I would suggest everybody who thinks they know science to take the test. Its inconclusive though, the sneaky mailman might be the same blood type as you, or just pass that on luckily. The estimate was something like %20 of children are “illegitamate” but this is all apocrypha, the only citation I can find is Dr. Louis Klien Diamond’s memorial tribute.
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/05.30/18-mmdiamond.html
saluted for his work in baby blood, or pediatric hematology.
Science is unrelenting to our beliefs when it is done right.
April 30th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
While we are at it, what evolutionary purpose is served, in the Neolithic (they were, as far as we can tell, physicaly exactly the same as us - and brain size is one of the most well-documented characteristics of the ancients) environment, by a brain capable of writing Shakespear’s plays, comprehending relativity, or driving a car?
April 30th, 2005 at 10:28 pm
Kevin, I suspect that the wand could squash spiders, too.
May 1st, 2005 at 8:42 am
Or at least, make them very happy arachnids, more prone to biting off the heads of their mates.