Skip to main content

The "Purpose" of the Female Orgasm

I read on Wikipedia today that the female orgasm has no reproductive use, whereas the male orgasm does. Who the hell comes up with this bollo**s? Firstly, orgasms by themselves cannot be directly related to reproduction, since the vast, vast, vast majority of living things reproduce just fine without them. Secondly, there is no such thing as purpose in evolution.

Our idea of purpose is something preconceived to serve a function. For example, a chair is made to be sat on. A typewriter is made to be typed with. A blog post is written to be read and shared. Evolution does not work that way. Nothing is ever made to serve any function because nothing is made according to a function, before that function exists. The concept of function itself is tightly dependent on the environment. A function is the relationship between two things which are connected to each other by cause, effect and time.

The only reason most things have a function in living things is because those that didn't, couldn't survive. The fundamental blueprint for life on Earth came to be the moment the very first, basic life form evolved. That is our common ancestor - of all alive today. Really, everything that came afterwards couldn't have been that far off the right recipe for life, since what it came from was a work of perfection (loosely, relatively speaking).

So what's the deal with this whole orgasm thing?


The idea suggested on Wikipedia is that orgasms encourage men to have sex, and since orgasms are associated with ejaculation of sperm, then that means that orgasm is involved in reproduction. On the other hand, female orgasms are not associated with an egg maturing, or anything like that, hence female orgasms are not involved in reproduction.

What results in reproduction in simple species, things such as mere chemical signals over a minuscule pathway, builds up to bigger things such as hormone secretion in dogs - and so the accumulation of these precursors is almost like an inheritance passed on to further species which diverge from the ancestors.

Would men have sex if they never knew of orgasms? Would women? Undoubtedly. Would men and women have more sex if they knew of orgasms? Certainly.

But such moment of truth never existed to start off with, because as humans, we have always been orgasming, and so have our ancestors further back. It's like having two ears was never up for selection, simply because it had been established a long time ago that that is the template. Women have orgasms, and while orgasms are not part of the zoomed-in mechanism of reproduction, they are part of the zoomed-out mechanism of reproduction.

Arguably, no one "knows" of orgasms before they have one, in the sense of actually knowing what it feels like. Yet they may still masturbate as children or teenagers, or even later on. The drive is not the orgasm initially, but the feeling of pleasure caused by stimulation - a feeling perhaps so basic that could be traced down many, many generations of species.


Comments

  1. Well...the first problem is quoting Wikipedia! When anyone can alter the content...obviously it could have been changed by a 4 year old. Second...it further proves that sex with males can usually just be sex (driven by hormones and the need to procreate), while with females there is a separation of the sexual act and the mental aspect of an orgasm. Not that I am saying a woman can't like one night stands and vice versa, but there is an actual reaction in the brain with orgasm (proven), and a much smaller reaction with males. By saying a female orgasm has no use would simply imply that men shouldn't then have sex without the intent on producing an offspring...ending all masterbation for everyone (which actually starts in the womb, and can be clearly seen on an ultrasound.) Now THAT would be sad! My final point: if the female orgasm has no reproductive use...then take it away and see how often there is any "reproduction" going on for anyone!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that some content on Wikipedia is questionable, or even downright subjective, but the reason I chose to quote Wikipedia is two-fold:

      1. That's where I read that the female orgasm has no purpose in reproduction, and

      2. Wikipedia is, rightly or not, the ultimate source of knowledge for a lot of people, therefore it's quite important to challenge it in order to make sure it doesn't get a free pass to persuade people of certain things just because of its reputation.

      I'm not saying Wikipedia is rubbish, on the contrary, I really do respect it for what it's achieved and the way anyone in the world, more or less, has access to what humanity has collected so far. Yet everything needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

      You make some good points, Jn Mc, thanks for the contribution :)

      Delete
  2. Anyone ever heard of using your orgasm for healing bodies and expanding Minds? Someone has come up with a very interesting way to Self Heal and Expand Consciousness with Love Burst Classes at www.LoveExpos.org

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like how they explain the difference between an orgasm for procreation and those that are for evolutionary purposes. That made a lot of sense to me. This would be a very powerful experience for women.

      Delete
  3. Heya i am for the first time here. I found this board and I find It really useful &
    it helped me out much. I hope to give something back and help others like you aided me.
    Here is my blog ... social media optimization

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Comment...

Popular posts from this blog

By-products of Evolution - why not everything has a purpose

Last time we looked at how certain major adaptations such as hair loss have enabled humans to survive over the millennia in different conditions, and when faced with competition from other species. Not everything about the human body has a specific purpose, though, in the sense that we expect it to. One example of such thing is the philtrum - that little channel leading from the base of your nose to the upper lip. Recent research suggests that this development dates back millions of years, and has been inherited from fish. Apparently, when human embryos develop their face in the womb, all parts of the forehead, mouth, etc come together and fuse where the philtrum is located.


Some adaptations, on the other hand, are no longer relevant not because of their nature, but because the environmental selection pressure for which they evolved has disappeared. For example, an East Asian's typical eyelid shape evolved as a result of higher light intensities in that area of the world, yet the …

The evolution of the human body

In order to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror and be able to answer the question "Why do I look like this?", we must look back to our ancestry and their lifestyle, over a very long period of time. For the purpose of this analysis, let's look at the human versus the neanderthal. Recently there have been found neanderthal genes within the human gene pool, but the two species are different enough to compare, yet not too different (human versus fly would be too different).

As you can see, the construction of the human pelvis and toes is different, and the human has less hair. This results in humans being able to run easily for long distances, in the detriment of short-distance running which we are worse at. We sweat better, so we can do more long-term effort. This feat is essential to better settlements, as we can discover a larger area with potentially better resources. It might seem counterproductive to not be able to run quickly for a short period, when it comes …

4 Reasons Google's Calico Won't "Solve Death"

The on-line world has been taken ablaze by Calico's bid to end ageing, and thus death itself, but is this what they will actually focus on, and will they achieve it?



The fact is ageing will be reversed, and death by "natural causes" will go with it. The questions are "When?" and "By whom?".

Until recently, not a lot was known about the approach Calico would take in this venture dubbed "moonshot thinking" - a term touted by Google as the source of all considerable human progress throughout history. This we don't doubt, but is this what Calico is all about?


CNN's Dan Primack has revealed details about Calico's plan, which hint at a less-than-moonshot thinking approach, and cast a serious question mark on its ability to deliver the punchy TIME headline. Here is why:

1. The man with the idea, Bill Maris, arrived at the conclusion that the root of all death-causing disease is simply ageing itself. Not only is this widely known in the ant…