Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Purpose of the female orgasm in reproduction

smallequestrian · 11-11-2003, 08:27 PM

I had to write an article review for an Anthro class a couple of years ago on the same subject. Its a synopsis of the two main arguments for why it exists. Enjoy!

"The complex issue of female orgasm comes down to two opposing factors: is it an adaptation or an artifact. The view of female orgasm as an adaptation is really a true Darwinian look based upon that natural selection somehow favored female orgasm and that is the reason it exists. The opposing viewpoint says, in a very simplified form, that females have orgasms because males do.
The artifact argument bases itself not just on the genitalia but also use the nipples as a source of information. When you look at male nipples you wonder what their purpose is. Male nipples certainly do not lactate like they do in females, so what possible reason could they have to exist? The same approach can be taken when the penis and the clitoris are examined. The purpose of the penis is to ejaculate sperm into the female vaginally through the male’s orgasm. The clitoris does not actually serve to release gametes, as the penis does, but still retains the male function as a source of orgasm. The nipples and the genitalia of both sexes are linked together through embryology. Embryology shows that at the beginning of prenatal development males and females start out with essentially the same equipment and that it is only later in the pregnancy that the structure of the genitalia actually starts to differentiate.
Gould says that the reason males and females are structurally analogous is that it is developmentally prohibitive to waste energy on developing completely separate structures. Therefore, while orgasm was adapted for in the male with the purpose of releasing gametes through the penis, it would have been developmentally prohibitive to totally redesign the female just because the clitoris doesn’t serve the same purpose. It is also important to note why Gould and Symons would say that the clitoris doesn’t serve a purpose even though through its direct stimulation it causes orgasm. The central argument to that, is that if female orgasm was an adapted for trait, why is it such an infrequent occurrence in females as cited by the many studies in Symons article and if male orgasm is a product of sexual intercourse, then why is not the clitoris in the vagina where it would receive direct stimulation during sexual intercourse?
Of course, Alcock and Alexander would argue that orgasm is adapted for trait in females and that it is infrequent for a reason. Female orgasm, as hypothesized by Alexander is a tool to enhance pair bonds and a tool of communication. Females are more likely to have orgasms with males they prefer, in attempt to reassure the males that they are disinclined to seek sex elsewhere. If this is correct, female orgasm would show outward signs, mimic that of male orgasm, frequently involve deception, occur more often in long-term satisfying relationships with dominant or superior males, and occur less often with casual or lesser males. This all leading to the outcome that female orgasm is an adaptation in order to secure a male that will be best suited to help with parental care. Alcock looks at what Gould says, and basically says how dare you say the clitoris is useless, and to a certain extent he Alcock has a point.
Gould countered this argument with this: “its logically incorrect equation of current utility with reasons of historical origin. The range of biological utility is vastly greater than the domain of function for immediate reproductive success.” Just because female orgasm might happen more often between a couple with a better relationship now, doesn’t mean it served the same purpose at its origin. And, I think that this best relates why just because something is there, doesn’t mean that there is a direct purpose.
Unfortunately, the whole argument between the two sides seems to get lost in what appears to be a general loathing for what Alexander deems “anti-intellectual” thinking. While Alexander does seem to possess some valid points, he does, and admittedly so, really seeks to prove his point by trying to deconstruct Gould’s arguments rather than raise compelling arguments of his own. And at the same time Alexander seems to do it derisively which somewhat undermines what he is trying to say."

11-11-2003, 08:27 PM	#6 (permalink)
smallequestrian Upright	this is an article review I wrote... I had to write an article review for an Anthro class a couple of years ago on the same subject. Its a synopsis of the two main arguments for why it exists. Enjoy! "The complex issue of female orgasm comes down to two opposing factors: is it an adaptation or an artifact. The view of female orgasm as an adaptation is really a true Darwinian look based upon that natural selection somehow favored female orgasm and that is the reason it exists. The opposing viewpoint says, in a very simplified form, that females have orgasms because males do. The artifact argument bases itself not just on the genitalia but also use the nipples as a source of information. When you look at male nipples you wonder what their purpose is. Male nipples certainly do not lactate like they do in females, so what possible reason could they have to exist? The same approach can be taken when the penis and the clitoris are examined. The purpose of the penis is to ejaculate sperm into the female vaginally through the male’s orgasm. The clitoris does not actually serve to release gametes, as the penis does, but still retains the male function as a source of orgasm. The nipples and the genitalia of both sexes are linked together through embryology. Embryology shows that at the beginning of prenatal development males and females start out with essentially the same equipment and that it is only later in the pregnancy that the structure of the genitalia actually starts to differentiate. Gould says that the reason males and females are structurally analogous is that it is developmentally prohibitive to waste energy on developing completely separate structures. Therefore, while orgasm was adapted for in the male with the purpose of releasing gametes through the penis, it would have been developmentally prohibitive to totally redesign the female just because the clitoris doesn’t serve the same purpose. It is also important to note why Gould and Symons would say that the clitoris doesn’t serve a purpose even though through its direct stimulation it causes orgasm. The central argument to that, is that if female orgasm was an adapted for trait, why is it such an infrequent occurrence in females as cited by the many studies in Symons article and if male orgasm is a product of sexual intercourse, then why is not the clitoris in the vagina where it would receive direct stimulation during sexual intercourse? Of course, Alcock and Alexander would argue that orgasm is adapted for trait in females and that it is infrequent for a reason. Female orgasm, as hypothesized by Alexander is a tool to enhance pair bonds and a tool of communication. Females are more likely to have orgasms with males they prefer, in attempt to reassure the males that they are disinclined to seek sex elsewhere. If this is correct, female orgasm would show outward signs, mimic that of male orgasm, frequently involve deception, occur more often in long-term satisfying relationships with dominant or superior males, and occur less often with casual or lesser males. This all leading to the outcome that female orgasm is an adaptation in order to secure a male that will be best suited to help with parental care. Alcock looks at what Gould says, and basically says how dare you say the clitoris is useless, and to a certain extent he Alcock has a point. Gould countered this argument with this: “its logically incorrect equation of current utility with reasons of historical origin. The range of biological utility is vastly greater than the domain of function for immediate reproductive success.” Just because female orgasm might happen more often between a couple with a better relationship now, doesn’t mean it served the same purpose at its origin. And, I think that this best relates why just because something is there, doesn’t mean that there is a direct purpose. Unfortunately, the whole argument between the two sides seems to get lost in what appears to be a general loathing for what Alexander deems “anti-intellectual” thinking. While Alexander does seem to possess some valid points, he does, and admittedly so, really seeks to prove his point by trying to deconstruct Gould’s arguments rather than raise compelling arguments of his own. And at the same time Alexander seems to do it derisively which somewhat undermines what he is trying to say."