In your column on the purpose of hymens, you state that no-one knows why women have orgasms. Sorry to bust your blissfully ignorant male bubble, sweetie, but the answer to this particular conundrum has recently been sussed out by science. A couple of years ago, I was watching some English documentary about sex on PBS (meaning it was playing on PBS, not that it was about having sex while on PBS, oh, never mind…). Since this show was produced in Europe, it had a wealth of footage which would never have been approved in the good old stuffy Puritan USA, including some breathtaking footage of the inside of a woman’s vagina during the act of coitus (done, according to the narrator, with fiber optics). The whole chamber was revealed, looking like a vast warm pink-and-red cathedral, with the cervix above like a lovely stained-glass window (I guess you can tell I really like having a woman’s body). When the woman reached orgasm, lo and behold! the aforementioned cervix began going into the most picturesque, balletic convulsions, causing it to dip down into the pool of semen on the floor of the vagina, thereby SUCKING UP the aforementioned semen. An answer at last! The purpose of women’s orgasms (physiologically, at least) thus seems to be an aid to pregnancy, in that they facilitate the sperm making it into the uterus and on up their merry way to the ever popular ovum. And people say women’s orgasms are just a lot of biological self-indulgence. Though I gotta admit they are loads of fun! Whoo-hoo!!
Meiga, I saw that film in my sex-ed class in high school!
In Cecil’s defense…
Well, sure, female orgasms facilitate pregnancy. And there is evidence that women can “choose” (not necessarily consciously) whom to have an orgasm with, thereby making it more likely to become pregnant with one male rather than another. (For instance, when a woman has had consistent sex with one partner and not become pregnant, and has sex with a new partner, she is more likely to have an orgasm at the same time the new partner does.)
But wouldn’t it work even better for a woman to be able to cause the cervix to convulse at will? It would be more consistent, and would avoid the problem of non-simulataneous orgasm (which doesn’t aid reproduction at all.) The pleasure of orgasm seems to be unnecessary for it’s function, and might actually get in the way. Besides this, 70% of all women can’t orgasm through intercourse alone, which makes the whole subject even more puzzling. Why would orgasm from manual clitoral stimulation be even remotely useful? (Except for the woman in question, of course. I’m sure it’s useful to her.)
Can you imagine how they auditioned for that role? “Okay, we need you to have sex with your husband, and a small fiber-optic camera is going to be slipped inside you as well. There’ll be a team of scientists and cameramen standing by, and make sure to orgasm at the same time he does, okay? Or we’ll have to, um, reshoot.”
And if they paid her for the role, is that prostitution? (Sorry - wrong thread.)
I think it’s the same answer as, “Why do men
have nipples?” There’s no biological necessity. But there is some wiring that is the same with women and men that gets implemented differently as the fetus develops, based on the hormones available. For example, a fetus that is a male according to DNA, if deprived of testosterone, develops like a very feminine female, including vagina. But the reproductive plumbing is missing. Orgasms are probably there for mail sexual function but are a happy remnant for females.
Disclaimer: I ain’t no biologist.
Jeff
“Computers are useless–they can only give you answers.”
– Pablo Picasso
The reason women have orgasms and men have nipples is because in the begining stages of development of an embryo there is no difference between a male and a female, just a sex area. As the fetus develops hormones are released based on the X or Y chromosome. It is the hormones that cause the sex characteristics, not the DNA directly. The lump of nerves in the groin region then becomes either a clitorous or a penis head. A male scrotum => female labia. Nipples don’t come into play until puberty and hormones trigger this as well. You can take an embryo and change its sex by ultering it hormones, a bit unethical, but cool. Its a matter of development efficency that make women have a clitorous and males have nipples.
There’s an awful lot of trouble associated with bearing children. If sex weren’t enjoyable at some point, women would not want to get involved with the whole mating thing. Orgasms are the honey that draws the flies. Women – is there much of a point to sexual intercourse that doesn’t include at least one decent orgasm for you?
I prefer the biological reason that orgasms help facilitate pregnancy. It makes sense, it works on camera, there ya go.
My favorite reason for female orgasms is that, as a man, it tells me I’m doing something right. “Her” climax (in quotes 'coz I’m currently single) is an immense turn-on for me, makes me feel closer to “her,” and brings me back for more. What could be bad?
Interesting that the “convulsing” of the cervix may explain why women are slower to orgasm than men. If the woman orgasms after the man, the cervix will still get dipped in the sperm; whereas if she orgasms first, it won’t. Another possible reason for multiple orgasms; if at first you don’t succeed…
Well, yeah; I’m not disputing that…I’m just saying that the woman’s orgasm after the man’s may make it more likely for a woman to conceive, therefore it has a biological purpose.
Uh…why do you think that? If he’s really premature, he won’t even get it in!
To repeat: we don’t really know why women have orgasms. It may well be the case that an orgasm will increase the likelihood of pregnancy, but the majority of women don’t have orgasms during intercourse and nonetheless become pregnant. I’m not aware of any studies suggesting that women who have orgasm during intercourse have higher fertility rates (although I’ve now got an outstanding dissertation topic should I ever decide to go back for that biology PhD). I think it’s more likely, though of course one can’t be sure, that women have orgasm for the same reason men have nipples, i.e., it’s a byproduct of early fetal development.
Finally, Meiga kid, not to be critical or anything, but if you’re going to dispute your Unca Cecil, you think you could come up with something a little more authoritative than a bit you saw on television?
A female orgasm doesn’t have to have a biological function in itself to make it very useful in the reproductive cycle.
Sex for the female animal is a lot of work and fairly risky. You have to find mates, convince them that they want to bump uglies with you, find a place safe from predators, risk getting banged up and bitten and infected by that big beast you selected, and do it often enough to ensure pregnancy. What do females get for it? Months of discomfort and immobility, a dangerous explosion of new life out of their bodies, and then more months of discomfort and immobility.
Any sensible woman would kill a man who so much as pointed his willy in her direction if it weren’t that sex feels so damned good.
And to help ensure that those little tadpoles are given a chance to do their work, it’s not enough that it feels good. A woman has to enjoy it long enough to give a guy time to shoot his spoonful. Hell, how far would we get if women rolled over and fell asleep (or went out looking for other men) while men were left unsatisfied?
There’s no better way to ensure a man’s orgasm than to have an orgasm awaiting the female, too. It’s that big reward a woman gets if she has sex at least long enough for the man to orgasm. And multiple female orgasms only increase the chances that a woman will become pregnant–she’s go till she can’t go anymore or until, of course, she has milked the man dry and he’s lying in a whimpering, shriveled heap in the corner.
Camilla, I think you meant “years” of discomfort after the kid’s born. I’m up to three years now, and I’m waiting for the recovery. BTW, I saw that film of the “inner woman” on CBS, of all places, back in 1989! I remember cuz I was watching it at my meth-using neighbor’s place, and he moved in '89. So, American TV has gotten tamer, except on PBS I guess.
About the orgasm: I think women have them to have something to shoot for (unfortunate pun not intended). We hear of those fortunate woment who have them; therefore, we will search through dozens (hypothetically … ahem) of candidates, looking for the one who will bring us to this legendary pinnacle. And if we didn’t, lots of guys out there wouldn’t stand a chance.
I may be going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that there are plenty of animals that get all the procreating done they need without the female feeling what humans call an orgasm, so the reason for it can’t be purely biological. Leaving aside the issue of ripples and stuff, the question is why it feels so damn good? It makes sex a lot more fun for the woman which encourages women to have a lot more of it which, in evolutionary terms, is what the male wants because the more often he has sex the more likely it is that he will pass on his genes to healthy offspring. By making sex more fun for the female, more of it is made available to the male, thus strengthening the family unit and making it that much more likely that the male will stick around not only through the pregnancy but also for the labour-intensive rearing years. Anyone?
I just wanted to add that the theroy proposed by Cecil Adams, Seigle and Kinross (That female orgasms have no adaptave advantage and are simply the fortuitous result of the way sex is expressed in fetuses) is the theroy backed by Stephen Jay Gould, the most influential evolutionist since Darwin and a man who undoubtably has forgotten more about evolution than all of us combined have ever known. I don’t usually like to argue from authority (Such and such must be true because so and so said so. . .) but when it comes to Gould and evolution, I think it is acceptable.
The essay he wrote on the topic was originally published in the magazine Natural History under the title “Freudian Slips”. It has since been republished in a collection of Gould’s essays called Bully for Brontosaurus under the title “Male Nipples and Clitoral Ripples.” Both this essay and the whole book are non-technical, and I highly recomend them to anyone at all interested in this topic. Gould is that rarest of creatures, a brilliant researcher and a brilliant comunicator. (Isn’t there someone else, writes a popular column, who is also like that?
I’m sure it’s useful to her.)