The Female Orgasm - Article

[Amanduh 0]

The Female Orgasm - Proof of God
Science Can't Explain it, evolution can't understand it, and Men can only lie there in awe.
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist


Women have orgasms because they can. Women have orgasms because it's the right thing to do. Women have orgasms because by and large they refuse to launch monstrous ultraviolent illegal soul-deadening wars over oilsucking phallocentric powermad landwhoring BS powergrabs and therefore they fully deserve all the inexplicable otherworldly cosmically infused clitorally energized pleasures they can get.

Did you catch that keyword? That note of strangeness? It was right there, in the word inexplicable. Because apparently, as far as science is concerned and despite the obvious reasons I assert above, no one really seems to know exactly why women have orgasms at all.

Observe, won't you, a new book by a soft-spoken scientist named Dr. Elisabeth Lloyd, from Indiana U, that basically claims there is no justifiable evolutionary need for the female orgasm whatsoever, that it really serves no known biological purpose and that it's becoming, therefore, increasingly obsolete and redundant and more or less unnecessary.

Note how much fun Dr. Lloyd must be at parties. Or on a date.

After all, the book concludes, the clitoris merely exists to create excitement to promote reproduction, but the female orgasm is merely a weird biological afterthought, a remembrance of things past, a wisp of a hint of something that came long before that maybe only our ape ancestors could fully appreciate and make good use of, mostly for generating a more potent, primitive urge to make little furry ape babies.

But now witness, argues the book, the heartbreaking number of modern non-ape women who have tragically low or nonexistent sex drives but who still feel absolutely compelled to pop out a nice brood of offspring. The female orgasm, clearly, ain't for procreation. It has no effect on the transport of sperm. It doesn't drive maternal desire. So, if the urge to orgasm has no connection with the urge to procreate, why do women get them at all?

This is the great thing about science. It gets all flabbergasted and confounded and scrunchy when confronted with things it doesn't quite understand and that it can't quite figure out and that don't fit into neat categories, especially if said things are astounding explosive events that make women moan and writhe and gasp and grin and feel their deep inborn prelapsarian connection to just about all of eternity, in the space of about 17 seconds.

There is no room in this mode of science for, you know, mystery. There is no room for the deeply funky or the hotly mystical, the moist divine wild card. This is because stiff little science tends to cram all possibility for a given explanation into the great maw of cold beautiful logic and spits out, sadly and tellingly and almost without fail, the cosmic hunks of mystical possibility as if they were indigestible bones.

That scientific view is, of course, one way to look at it. There is, naturally, another.

Let us open up a little, go deep and explore and probe further and say, ahh yes. Because it can also be very easily argued that the female orgasm is, quite simply, the Great Mystical Link, the hot divine thing that connects and communicates and interrelates between heaven and Earth, mind and body, soul and sky, dream state and anal bead, Astroglide and God.

Maybe, in other words, the female orgasm doesn't need a purely biological purpose. Maybe it's about something more. Maybe it has -- dare we say it? -- a spiritual purpose. Vibrational. Transcendental. Gasp! Hide the children.

Well, why not? Have you seen a wild female orgasm lately? Have you borne witness? Because you really, really should. One good look and the fact comes clear: The thing is at once directly hardwired to the deep chthonic Earth while at the same time has the bright shimmering cosmos on speed dial. It's true. It's obvious. Any good and deeply felt female climax is clearly a subatomic vibrational pulse of such unusual and kaleidoscopic frequency that the only ones who can truly hear its messages are purple orchids and bright red snakes and the aliens who built the Great Pyramids. All hail.

So then. If you want to argue that anything has been lost to the mists of time and awareness, let's argue that. Let's lament the demise of that link, the great orgasmic disconnect, the massive cultural spin downward toward sexual terror and orgasmic stagnation and Laura Bush.


In other words, let's argue that the female orgasm, far from becoming obsolete and useless, is more necessary and vital than ever before, because it is the orgasm that allows us a glimpse of what lies beyond, of what we can become, of all that there is and all we want to be and all we want to become and it's all wrapped up in a white-hot moment of transcendental moaning hope. Plus, as I understand it, they're just tremendous amounts of fun.

So now, if Lloyd's book is to be believed, the fact that women are losing the orgasmic impulse, the fact that the female water slide is not worshipped and studied and taught like a joyful religion or glorious deity in this dazed and confused and Bush-ravaged culture, and the sad fact that every girl is not given a new Hitachi Magic Wand as a beautiful rite of passage when she hits 14, these are more than merely the great tragedies of our age. They might very well be the things keeping us from progressing at all.

Which is to say, deny the power of the mystico-erotic spiritual gasp at your peril. Look to science to explain away all our slick needful quiverings as mere rote mechanical factions, and watch the spirit wither and cringe and say uh, hello, over here, please, what the hell is wrong with you people?

The female orgasm is just useless fun? Just a vestigial remnant of our licentious monkey ancestors, increasingly obsolete and something that will soon be completely replaced with lots of yawning and sighing and a slow steady gaze at the ceiling as she ponders paint colors for the kitchen while the man sweats and grunts and enjoys 2.3 minutes of primitive emasculated gorilla lust? Hardly. Leave that for the Republicans and the Christian Right.

Woman's orgasm has no evolutionary purpose? Bull. Woman's orgasm is proof of evolution, baby. Spiritual, karmic, celestial evolution. It is what propels us forward, brings us light and awareness and deep laughing cosmic moan and makes much of life worth living. And if we lose our grip on that notion and insist on devolving at our current rate, we will be in deep trouble indeed.

Magic Wands all around, Dr. Lloyd. It's the right thing to do.

[SpeedRacer 1]

My thoughts:

hmmm. well it would seem to me that the female orgasm would be selected, based on the fact that the more a female enjoys sex, the more likely she is to indulge in it, and is therefore more likely to procreate.

This is more important in humans than in other mammals, because in humans the sex drive is more highly influenced by the cerebrum, whereas in many other mammals it's mostly just hormone-driven.

So the development & increased importance of the human brain is related to orgasms. That's why smart people are sexier.

Another observation: Compared to the other primates (chimps, gorillas, orangs) human males have much larger penises. This was probably due to selection of male mating partners by females. Again, a brain-driven decision about who to have sex with is key.

The unique development of sexuality in humans is all about the mind.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[wartload 0]

I think that the assertion that there's no biological or evolutionary reason for women to have orgasms is ridiculous.

Were it not for that fact, no woman would ever have had a second child. I'm convinced that they'd have run away from the male, risked death, or whatever was necessary not to go through childbirth again. Make all the arguments that you want about natural maternal instincts. They may be valid, but it's the Big O that tilts the scale in favor of risking that again.

[kallend 2,148]

Women have orgasms for the same reason men have nipples, and biology is quite capable of explaining both.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nbblood 0]

I think we should have a study. We all go out and initiate as many female orgasms as possible in the next month. Then we ponder momentarily, realize it doesn't matter why, and continue the process.

This study could go on indefinitely. Of course while we're at it, might as well study the male orgasm too.

Blues,
Nathan

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[Amanduh 0]

LMMFAO!!

I figured this would trigger some pretty interseting comments...

[Designer 0]

What he said!I wish!(lmao)Have yet to have any skydiving chick even let me see her naked let alone bed her!(lol)Yep,I'm a mess!(lol)

[lawrocket 3]

I think that women orgasms are not necessarily an evolutionary vestige. Human sexuality cannot compare to other animals - even our close evolutionary relatives, the primates.

Human men do not have a baculum. Why not? Perhaps from an evolutionary standpoint, humans developed different needs than other animals. Instead of having a bone there ready at any time, human men developed the requirement to be turned on prior to sexual intercourse.

Thus, from the standpoint of pure procreation, the process took an evolutionary step back, requiring more effort and taking more time (though I'll bet women disagree).

The woman who was best at turning on the man therefore stood a greater chance of keeping that man.

Why not look at the opposite as being true. Women have the ability to orgasm. If the guy wants to make sure that she's there for him and not bearing the children of other men, he better keep her happy. Especially today, orgasms are becoming more and more important to women, at least vocally.

How many women out there would devote yourself totally to a guy who couldn't bring you to orgasm?

It therefore seems to me that this is an evolutionary and sociological adaptation meant to ensure proper selection of a mate, and also meant to help provide some continuing security to the woman.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dgskydive 0]

Actually the female orgasim is there so that women have a reason to get upset at the guy when they don't have one.

Dom

[vdschoor 0]

Quote

Actually the female orgasim is there so that women have a reason to get upset at the guy when they don't have one.

Dude.. RUN!!

he he

[billvon 3,118]

>Human men do not have a baculum.

All primates are missing a baculum.

> Instead of having a bone there ready at any time, human men
>developed the requirement to be turned on prior to sexual intercourse.
>Thus, from the standpoint of pure procreation, the process took an
>evolutionary step back

Hmm. You think so? One less bone to produce, a more flexible groin, and a more easily retracted penis would seem like net benefits - provided function did not suffer from its loss. And since primates seem to have a sufficiently developed brain to allow the hardwiring for relatively long copulations, it would seem like no penalty.

>It therefore seems to me that this is an evolutionary and sociological
> adaptation meant to ensure proper selection of a mate . . .

Agreed. It originally came about because males had one, and thus women had the genetic ability to experience one; the ones that did experience one tended to reproduce more often, and thus the trait was preserved.

>and also meant to help provide some continuing security to the woman.

How? Wouldn't a woman who was more dependent on orgasms be more likely to leave one man for another who was better at getting her to orgasm? A bonding arrangement that took into account other factors (like smell or appearance) would seem to be a better choice if security was paramount.

[RastaRicanAir 0]

Quote

Women have orgasms for the same reason men have nipples, and biology is quite capable of explaining both.

Just a note:
According to ultrasonic film recently taken of the interior of a woman in the throes of climax, during an orgasm the flexing of abdominal muscles actually causes the uterus to move downward and press against the rear wall of the vagina. Theoretically, if the woman were on her back, and had just been inseminated, this would cause the cervix to press down directly into a pool of semen; logically increasing the likelihood of fertilization.

That's when they're on their backs.
Why they have them when they're leaning over the dresser is beyond me. But it makes their faces nice to look at in the mirror.

OrFunV/LocoBoca Rodriguez/Sonic Grieco/Muff Brother #4411
-"and ladies....messin with Robbie is venturing into territory you cant even imagine!-cuz Robbie is

[Remster 30]

Quote

According to ultrasonic film

There has been some actual video of that. A BBC series with Desmond Morris (forget the name of it.. the Human Animal or something like that) showed it. It was quite cool.

Remster

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

All primates are missing a baculum.

Actually, all primates except humans have one.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9011675

Quote

And since primates seem to have a sufficiently developed brain to allow the hardwiring for relatively long copulations, it would seem like no penalty.

Primates seem to generally have somewhat short copulations. Look at apes mating. Female presents the butt, the male approaches, done a few seconds later. Female wanders off. The male continues being lazy.

Again, many women may find this to be familiar territory.

Clearly, humans developed an aleternative function. Heck, we may have lost it when we started walking on two legs instead of four and developed another way of attaining rigidity.

Again, these are my theories. I'm no scientist, and I'll sue your ass if you hold me to scientific standards.

Quote

It originally came about because males had one, and thus women had the genetic ability to experience one; the ones that did experience one tended to reproduce more often, and thus the trait was preserved.

That's something I'm not so sure about. My own informal survey indicates that women enjoy sex more than men. In fact, Greek mythology has a section about that. Tiresias was given the opportunity to live as a woman for a while. Zeus (whose philandering was well-discussed) told his wife Hera that he needs more sex than she does because she enjoys it more. When asked whether sex was more enjoyable for a woman or a man, Tieresius confirmed that, yes, woman enjoy it more. Thus, Hera blinded him. But Zeus gave him power of prophesy.

I'm certainly not sure which came first - the man of the woman. Pun intended. Who stood up first? The man or the woman? These are questions that won't be answered, and I think that a pleasure mechanism for the femal orgasm is just as likely to have developed first as the male orgasm.

Quote

Wouldn't a woman who was more dependent on orgasms be more likely to leave one man for another who was better at getting her to orgasm?

Exactly. A guy who gives a woman an orgasm is someone who can definitely take better care of a woman's needs. Often times, the woman must find the man willing to do so. While there are many exceptions to the rule, you'd think that a woman would not choose a mate who can't get her to orgasm. Of course, therein is a "phallacy" - to learn this, you must mate, and I sure-as-hell know that all it takes is one time to make a baby!

Quote

bonding arrangement that took into account other factors (like smell or appearance) would seem to be a better choice if security was paramount.

I disagree. Appearances change. Smells change. Sex does, however, lead to emotional bonding. Even when I was mad at my girlfriends, the sex was still good and helped us through problems. Of course, this is another phallacy. Had sex not gotten in the way, we'd have been over long before.

Interesting discussion, though.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[nbblood 0]

Wow...this has become such a technical discussion. Just get her hot, over the top already!!

I think "how-to" discussions are more important. You can never learn enough tricks of the trade!

Blues,
Nathan

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[Amanduh 0]

Quote

Why they have them when they're leaning over the dresser is beyond me.

I JUST ABOUT FAINTED!

[SpeedRacer 1]

I think its a mistake to describe it as a man needs to get a woman to orgasm, as if the man is "Performing" and the woman is just a passive, yet critical observer. A person does not GIVE another person an orgasm. A person has an orgasm or doesn't have one.( With or without another person).

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Avion 0]

Maybe I'm crazy, but I've noticed orgasimic women seem to have clitoral orgasams for a variety of reasons, sex is only one of them. Anything that appears to stimulate their mental interest seems to be fair game for an orgasim: A good conversation, a movie scene, riding horses , ice cream, etc...

Now a sweating, moaning, body convulsing vaginal one is a whole 'nother story....

[billvon 3,118]

>and I think that a pleasure mechanism for the femal orgasm is just
>as likely to have developed first as the male orgasm.

I don't think so. The urge in men is to rape - which is one reason men associate passion with strength. The urge in women is to submit - which is why women associate "going weak in the knees" with passion. Also, with our current physiology, the female cannot be the aggressor on an uncooperative (physiologically speaking) male, so a strong male sex drive is more useful, purely in terms of reproduction, than a female one.

(I should emphasize that the above in no way dictates how men and women _should_ behave. Our baser motivations were derived primarily to allow us to mate successfully, and do not indicate what is right and wrong for men and women to do.)

Now, that does not say that there are not additional evolutionary benefits from women's orgasms, but generally increased opportunities for copulation/reproduction trumps all other considerations in selective development.

Also, while this indicates that it's important for men to have a strong association with intercourse and pleasure, it does not indicate that women can't, or should not, have such an association. Indeed, since it's simpler in terms of development to have males and females have the same basic design, it would stand to reason that a selective pressure that induced men to have orgasms would have the same effect on women.

>Exactly. A guy who gives a woman an orgasm is someone who can
>definitely take better care of a woman's needs.

?? That may be true lately, but in our early development, a guy who could give a woman lots of orgasms but let her starve did a lot worse than an inept guy who could barely get it up - but could provide food for the female while she was gestating and nursing his offspring.

>I disagree. Appearances change. Smells change.

Well, plenty of other animals use such cues for permanent pair-bonding; seems to work for them.

[Snowwhite 0]

Quote

Quote

Why they have them when they're leaning over the dresser is beyond me.

I JUST ABOUT FAINTED!

Yea, it's had that effect on ME, TOO! But hey, I can just about faint in any position if the orgasm is good enough!

skydiveTaylorville.org
freefallbeth@yahoo.com

[Anta 0]

Quote

>The urge in men is to rape - which is one reason men associate passion with strength. The urge in women is to submit - which is why women associate "going weak in the knees" with passion.

This sounds like a whole lotta BS to me. Surely expressions on the line of "going weak in the knees" etc has to do with society, do other non-victorian cultures have such expressions?

And surely, if men would have the "urge to rape" (I assume you mean being with as many women as possible), they would not produce that much offspring anyway because: 1) Spontaneous abortion rate is quite high, 2) you have to rape the woman at the right time of the month, 3) you may rape someone who's already pregnant 4) The survival rate of the babies is likely to decrease significantly if the father isn't around to "provide".

It seems as though the success rate is likely to increase with a lower number of partners during a males life-time, especially since human women are not designed to have lots and lots of babies during their life-time (in comparison to mice, cats, etc).

To comment on the whole orgasm thing, it seems as though a lot of species have sex for pleasure: dolphins with each other, I read some article about female lions going down on each other, and apes masturbating (this was all on an evolution course I did that included the evolution of sex).

Don't you think females would have less sex if it wasnt pleasurable?

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Leave that for the Republicans and the Christian Right.

I understand that it is very frustrating for liberals to not be in power.

Can't you post about sex without mixing politics in a bonfire post?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am