It appears that scientists are as miffed about female orgasms as most men. Just take a look at this article from Popular Science, “Do Female Orgasms Help With Conception? New Study Says No” and then this other more disturbing piece in the Seriously, Science? blog over on Discover, “What’s the Point of Oral Sex?” that begins with possibly the two most offensive sentences I’ve ever read in my life.
Why on earth would anyone perform oral sex? Particularly on a woman?!?
Yes, why on earth would anyone ever perform oral sex, particularly on a woman? Because I guess it’s less disgusting to perform the act on a man, who, you know, actually pees with the organ involved, not to mention the living, swimming, squirming bits of genetic material that might shoot their way out and into the digestive tract at any second (if you do it right). Yes, going down on a woman is infinitely more disgusting than blowing a guy.
Ok, rant over. Let me calm down, by thinking more pleasant thoughts, like about the evolutionary benefits of the female orgasm.
The thing is, all the great minds of Western science have been struggling for years to figure out why women orgasm. See, the male orgasm makes sense to them because, as I learned in my fifth grade health class (where I was more excited about the free sample Always panty liner I received than anything Mrs. Heinz tried to teach us), the male orgasm causes ejaculate, filled with all the happy swimming spermies, to spurt out and impregnate any ova that might be lying about, say, like in my mouth. Oh, wait, not in my mouth. Maybe oral sex really is incomprehensible.
Anyway, male orgasm is what gets the sperm and egg together, so there seems to be a reason for it. But the female orgasm? Not so much. From the article in Popular Science:
A new study has found no correlation between female orgasms and fertility. This undermines one popular hypothesis for why, evolutionarily, women have orgasms. Women may be more likely to conceive when they orgasm, according to the theory, thus passing on their ability to their offspring. But if frequent orgasmers don’t have any more kids than infrequent orgasmers, then it doesn’t matter.
. . .
Instead, it may be that environmental factors drive both orgasm rate and offspring number, the researchers proposed. But they couldn’t exactly find these environmental factors, either. They tested orgasm rate and relationship length and orgasm rate and frequency of sex and found only weak correlations.
So it seems female orgasms will have to remain mysterious for a few years more.
Remind me never to
fuck date a guy who holds the opinion that female orgasms are “mysterious.”
I’m a firm believer that just about every human behavior has its roots in our evolutionary past, and I’ve written a bit about evolutionary biology on this blog. But could it be possible that there is no evolutionary advantage for the female orgasm? I hope not, because I like to imagine a human future with flying cars and colonies on the moon and and a world where all the women are multiorgasmic.
I hate to think that the female orgasm is just some vestigial remnant of human biology, like the appendix, or the left side of the brain in liberal arts majors. I want to believe that it’s there for a reason, as well as being proof that there is a God.