Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!ariel!ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!u1365281
From: u1365281@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Evolution & female orgasm
Message-ID: <1991Feb21.194210.1665@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: 21 Feb 91 08:42:10 GMT
References: <144759@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Organization: The University of Melbourne
Lines: 26

I came in late on this, so I don't exactly know where it came from:

>>>    But it seems really odd to think that women would have evolved a
>>>physiological capacity for orgasm, but have evolved it in such a way
>>>that it couldn't be triggered (except rarely) by practices that didn't
>>>arise until the advent of civilization.
>>   [ More stuff deleted ]
>>
>>>     Could most prehistoric women come to orgasm from penetration alone?
>>>If so, why can so few modern women?  If not, did prehistoric people
>>>augment penetration in a manner similar to our modern practices?  And if
>>>prehistoric women mostly didn't have orgasm when mating, why did the
>>>capacity for female orgasm evolve?
>>>
>      I beg your pardon, but why would you think that the advent
>      of civilization is a pre-requisite for techniques, male or
>      female applied, which can stimulate orgasm?   I rather
>      doubt that the prehistoric females were any more tolerant
>      of "me Tarzan, you Jane" male techniques than modern ones
>      are.

It is certainly possible that the female orgasm is not an adaptation at
all, but a pleiotropy connected genetically to the male orgasm. A friend
of mine, Elizabeth Lloyd, at the philosophy department at Berkeley is
writing a book that argues this. She finds problems with all of the 
current adaptive explanations. I beleive this is her current position.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com