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.
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.
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!
ReplyDeleteI agree that some content on Wikipedia is questionable, or even downright subjective, but the reason I chose to quote Wikipedia is two-fold:
Delete1. 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 :)
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
ReplyDeleteI 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.
DeleteHeya i am for the first time here. I found this board and I find It really useful &
ReplyDeleteit helped me out much. I hope to give something back and help others like you aided me.
Here is my blog ... social media optimization