Female orgasm

Let's get this out of the way: evolution = genius, creationism/ID = idiotic.

However,

female orgasm seems completely unnecessary, and isn't needed for pregnancy. In fact, it doesn't even really help.

"Oh, but female orgasm causes the cervix to absorb sperm, etc, etc."

Yes. But this really only works after the man releases sperm, is finished. This can also hsve a slight benefit during a mutual orgasm, but that's rare, mainly because women usually can't orgasm from penetration alone. But even then, both the man and woman's orgasm doesn't last long enough to to really aid sperm in its march toward the egg. Further more, throughout human history, women weren't respected enough that men would care about making a woman orgasm. Even today, female circumcision is practiced in parts of the world. Thus, it makes sense that ancient man, being much less civilized, would care even less...on top of the fact that ancient men probably didn't know that female orgasm helped reproduction.

That said, I do know that female orgasm does provide at least some benefit, and evolution/natural selection is driven by reproductive advantage. So that's enough to explain that. Also, female orgasm could just be a lucky by product of a citoris, which definitely gives a reproductive advantage. However, even this is only stimulated indirectly during sex.

So...

with all this said, is female orgasm a tough one for evolution? Is (dare I say it) ID a more palletable explanation?

Originally posted by vivify
Let's get this out of the way: evolution = genius, creationism/ID = idiotic.

However,

female orgasm seems completely unnecessary, and isn't needed for pregnancy. In fact, it doesn't even really help.

"Oh, but female orgasm causes the cervix to absorb sperm, etc, etc."

Yes. But this really only works after the man releases sperm, is finis ...[text shortened]... s female orgasm a tough one for evolution? Is (dare I say it) ID a more palletable explanation?

I'm too busy giving my girlfriend orgasms to seriously discuss sex. No session goes by without at least ten from her, and we'e reached upwards of thirty many times. And yes, they're all distinct, at least a minute apart, and she tells me that it's because I'm so damn skilled and sexy.

Originally posted by vivify
Let's get this out of the way: evolution = genius, creationism/ID = idiotic.

However,

female orgasm seems completely unnecessary, and isn't needed for pregnancy. In fact, it doesn't even really help.

"Oh, but female orgasm causes the cervix to absorb sperm, etc, etc."

Yes. But this really only works after the man releases sperm, is finis ...[text shortened]... s female orgasm a tough one for evolution? Is (dare I say it) ID a more palletable explanation?

So you are ok with female genital mutilation used as a way to ensure monogimy in some countries? If female orgasm has no evolutionary purpose that is.

What about the part that a man might feel like he likes to feel and see such orgasms so comes back for more and therefore more kids are produced?

Originally posted by vivify
Let's get this out of the way: evolution = genius, creationism/ID = idiotic.

However,

female orgasm seems completely unnecessary, and isn't needed for pregnancy. In fact, it doesn't even really help.

"Oh, but female orgasm causes the cervix to absorb sperm, etc, etc."

Yes. But this really only works after the man releases sperm, is finis ...[text shortened]... s female orgasm a tough one for evolution? Is (dare I say it) ID a more palletable explanation?

with all this said, is female orgasm a tough one for evolution?

Not really. It is quite simple; females that get pleasure from having sex would generally want to have sex in the future because they would want to seek such pleasure again and that increases their chances of getting pregnant (even if they don't want to get pregnant ) and therefore reproduction.
Natural selection would tend to select against those females for reproduction (not to be confused with for survival ) that get no pleasure from it because many of them would just always refuse to allow it and thus fail to ever reproduce.

In fact, the only mystery here I see isn't why women evolved to get pleasure from sex; the mystery I see here is why so many women don't get pleasure from sex despite evolution! Perhaps venereal diseases keeps weeding out the most lusty women? -what a pity.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I'm too busy giving my girlfriend orgasms to seriously discuss sex. No session goes by without at least ten from her, and we'e reached upwards of thirty many times. And yes, they're all distinct, at least a minute apart, and she tells me that it's because I'm so damn skilled and sexy.

I hate to bust your bubble, but it sounds like she is faking it to bolster your ego.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you are ok with female genital mutilation used as a way to ensure monogimy in some countries? If female orgasm has no evolutionary purpose that is.

What about the part that a man might feel like he likes to feel and see such orgasms so comes back for more and therefore more kids are produced?

Omfg...after all I typed, that's what you got? That I'm for irreparably damaging key sex organs?

And I already adressed your second point, and men historically not respecting women enough to care about their women's wants. For example, female genital mutilation.

Originally posted by humy

with all this said, is female orgasm a tough one for evolution?

Not really. It is quite simple; females that get pleasure from having sex would generally want to have sex in the future because they would want to seek such pleasure again and that increases their chances of getting pregnant (even if they don't want to get pregnant ) and the ...[text shortened]... e[/i] evolution! Perhaps venereal diseases keeps weeding out the most lusty women? -what a pity.

Very good points. One thing: even today, a common complaint among women is that the have trouble achieving orgasm. Just do a quick internet search. Further more, some women report that they can't orgasm at all. If we add to the fact that early man probably didn't even know about female orgasm, how would this trait get selected? Remember, women usually can't get orgasms from penetration alone.

Originally posted by vivify
Very good points. One thing: even today, a common complaint among women is that the have trouble achieving orgasm. Just do a quick internet search. Further more, some women report that they can't orgasm at all. If we add to the fact that early man probably didn't even know about female orgasm, how would this trait get selected? Remember, women usually can't get orgasms from penetration alone.

If we add to the fact that early man probably didn't even know about female orgasm

What!? Surely even they would have got the hint by their women saying, in caveman language, something like “That feels good......yes...yes....more...more...YES...YES...ARRRRRR“

women usually can't get orgasms from penetration alone.

yes, it has to be from a guy they like in which case the trait gets selected; or a sex toy, in which case the trait may not get selected.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I hate to bust your bubble, but it sounds like she is faking it to bolster your ego.

Mmm...you can fake noises, but you can't fake the muscle contractions, and besides that, she's pretty demanding. It's awesome.

Originally posted by humy

If we add to the fact that early man probably didn't even know about female orgasm

What!? Surely even they would have got the hint by their women saying, in caveman language, something like “That feels good......yes...yes....more...more...YES...YES...ARRRRRR“

women usually can't get orgasms from penetration alone.

...[text shortened]... which case the trait gets selected; or a sex toy, in which case the trait may not get selected.

Like I mentioned, historically, men didn't care about women's wants, especially when it csme to sex. That's why there's been laws (like in the bible) where wpm3n were stoned fornot being virgins when they were married. See also, female genital mutilation. So a woman giving a "hint" about what she liked probably did nothing.

Also, "liking" a guy has nothing to do with whether or not she'll come from penetration alone. A woman could be in love with a mwn for years, wnd never come that way. A porn star, however, could orgasm with an actor she just met.

While we're at it, let's throw female ejaculation (a.k.a. squirting) into the mix. How could evolution possibly explain that one?

Originally posted by vivify
Like I mentioned, historically, men didn't care about women's wants, especially when it csme to sex. That's why there's been laws (like in the bible) where wpm3n were stoned fornot being virgins when they were married. See also, female genital mutilation. So a woman giving a "hint" about what she liked probably did nothing.

Also, "liking" a guy has no ...[text shortened]... years, wnd never come that way. A porn star, however, could orgasm with an actor she just met.

men didn't care about women's wants, especially when it came to sex.

But, in the stone age (just like now in most societies ) it isn't just the men who decides who has sex with who, it is the woman as well -if the man wants it but the woman doesn't, often the woman desire (or lack of it ) would ensure it still doesn't happen (unless you are talking about rape )

That's why there's been laws (like in the bible)

Note those laws and the Bible and other sources of sexual oppression and rules about who can marry who etc came well after the stone age and probably have not been around long enough to have a significant evolutionary impact. If you want to think about the origins of the subtitles of modern sexuality of woman, you must think about what happened during the long stone age lasting millions of years when none of those 'laws' or rules existed, and not just the last few thousand years which probably counts for close-enough nothing. Back then, in many cases, there may have been no concept of 'marriage' and, even when there was, there either was no rules or the rules may have been completely different from what they are now and we wouldn't know exactly what those rules would have been -think stone age!

Originally posted by vivify
Omfg...after all I typed, that's what you got? That I'm for irreparably damaging key sex organs?

And I already adressed your second point, and men historically not respecting women enough to care about their women's wants. For example, female genital mutilation.

I didn't think you were for genital mutilation, I was just pointing out it happens on a daily basis more in the past but still.

There was a time before the Minoans that women were in control of society and it would have been evolutionarily expedient for men to please their women and thereby passing on their genes preferentially.