So about a month ago or so, I wrote an article on the “mysteries of the female orgasm”…
It was based off a piece that I had read in Psychology Today – and as I thumbed through the more recent issue, I noticed some loyal readers following up with their musings on said piece. The original posed the question: what was the function of the female orgasm – from an evolutionary standpoint? I don’t think a lot of PT readers understood what was being asked (Or maybe they skipped high school bio. Or live under a rock). Because, following that, I’ve seen a littering of ignorance base letters to the editor. Some of them got posted to the online portions. Some were there in this month’s issue- questioning the question itself.
Take this gentleman for instance:
While your input is appreciated, Michael, I think you may be forgetting a few relevant points here, darling:
When it comes to sex, no Michael, the same isn’t true for women. Some women never experience the big tada for the entirety of their wedded bed sentence – but keep trying anyway. Thing is: it still feels good leading up to the actual climax – both physically and psychologically – for the woman. This could potentially be sufficient motivation without a grand finale. I mean, when you think about it, we also scratch an itch, massage a muscle, or stretch in the morning- even though none of those feel-good things results in the rain of effluvia or an ecstatic spasmodic series of contractions. But more importantly, even without the female orgasm, women tend to repeat this behavior because of a hormone that we release during any human connection. The same one I talk about endlessly, yes: the cuddle hormone, oxytocin. It bonds people. Do something this intimate and that’s amplified. It doesn’t just have to happen at the peak-flood level that orgasm offers (though it certainly helps). For some – especially those who haven’t experienced the real deal – it could just be a potential cherry on top of a busted cherry.
Thus, the “mystery” is that it could be considered inefficient enough in the grand scientific scheme of things. Why waste energy needed to survive – on the capacity for orgasm? It’s only really necessary for the male – to ensure the propagation of the species. If that makes zero sense to you, then you’re looking at it from a totally ego-centric standpoint. Or, if you’re Michael, trying to impress some feminists.
The yes-and to that point, is a thing I don’t think I touched on in my previous article – and something that will be fun for bringing this feminist theme full circle. And that’s the fact that men are typically physically stronger. Michael, you seem like a sensitive young man, so you may not like this; but long before we lit our bras on fire and closer to when we’d just discovered fire, we may not have had much choice in the matter when it came to copulation. Are you picking up what I’m putting down? Yes? Good. ’cause I mean rape. Without social conventions, laws, women’s rights, or probably much morality at all – I think it’s safe to say that when we were just a step above aqueous apes, we womenfolk probably got a lot of unwelcome wiener. So if the acquisition of the female orgasm is evolutionarily a more recent win (speaking in the grand scheme of things), then it’s probably because it wasn’t necessary up until then. And that’s why we question its arrival.
Final thoughts: Maybe mutant G-spot born ladies prevailed because they were better mothers. If I were full of oxytocin from good lovin’, I’d probably be feeling much more amorous overall (while all my “normal” neighbors were suffering post partum depression and drowning their kids in the river.) I wonder if the first Lady O owners felt superpowered – or if they credited it to their dude’s magical peen.