June 8, 2005
AND THAT'S HOW THE LADIES GOT THEIR G-SPOTS (via Eugene S):
Female orgasm all in the genes: As one study ponders evolutionary reasons for some women's difficulty reaching climax, another draws a map of modern romance (David Adam, June 8, 2005, The Guardian)
Scientists who have studied the ability of thousands of women to climax say it is largely written in their genes - the most compelling evidence so far that the female orgasm has a biological role.The findings suggest the failure of some women to orgasm regularly is not a dysfunction, but a sophisticated mate-selection strategy that evolved during prehistoric times.
Tim Spector of St Thomas's hospital in London, who led the research, said: "The theory is that the orgasm is an evolutionary way of seeing if men can prove themselves to be likely good providers or dependable, patient and caring enough to look after the kids."
Women who orgasm very easily may be more likely to be satisfied with poor quality men.
"Perhaps women who had orgasms too easily weren't very good selectors," Professor Spector said. "It paid women to be more fussy and this is one way of doing it. The simple fact is that it takes women on average 12 minutes and men two and a half minutes to reach orgasm. Adjusting to that imbalance is a test." [...]
Thirty-two per cent of the women said they never or infrequently experienced an orgasm during sex, and 21% during masturbation. Only 14% said they always had an orgasm during sex.
Genetic comparisons showed that 34% of the variation during intercourse was inherited. In the case of masturbation, 45% of the difference was down to genes. The findings appear today in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters. [...]
The genes could work on a physical level, perhaps causing variations in the G-spot, the angle of the vagina, or the clitoris. They could work psychologically, to alter a woman's confidence or mood, or they might vary the activity of enzymes or hormones.
"It's likely to come from the mother's side but we can't say that it doesn't come from the father, if, for example, it's a psychological state rather than purely anatomical," he said.
When you stack nonsense this high it's almost unfair to pick out any one slice to deride, but let's all have a go (there could even be a book in it for someone). Here's one to get you started:
Note that Natural Selection, which we're assured has no teleological component, is here said to have weeded out "poor quality men." (That's even setting aside the fact that there seems to be no shortage of them around and fathering children.)
For years, I've been seeking proof that I'm a "high-quality man...."
Posted by: BB at June 8, 2005 9:09 AM..'two and a half minutes' ?? what, do these people think we're supermen?
Posted by: JonofAtlanta at June 8, 2005 9:56 AMIs two-and-a-half minutes high or low?
I'm pretty sure there are some people here with the requisite experience to answer that.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at June 8, 2005 10:01 AMTim Spector of St Thomas's hospital in London said, "Perhaps women who had orgasms too easily weren't very good selectors,"
Newsflash!
Englishman inept in bed. Elaborate theory at eleven.
Posted by: H.D. Miller at June 8, 2005 10:09 AMRe: G-Spot: It isn't common knowledge outside of Sexual Darwinism circles, but the "G" stands for "get" -- as in, "Honey, would you get me a sandwich?" This also an evolutionary selective behavior built into the female to help her weed out lower quality mates. Snoring males able to pry open a post-coital eyelid in disbelief (let alone get up and fix the sandwich) were considered excellent mates, patient and nurturing . . . and good in the kitchen.
Posted by: george at June 8, 2005 10:14 AMThat's way too funny to be true.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at June 8, 2005 10:18 AMLook at some of the language Dr. Spector uses in coming to his scientific conclusions:
"suggest" "assuming" "might" "likely" and two instances of "perhaps" and "could".
Don't know much about the subject, but women's jeans have certainly blocked my ability to achieve org... wait, we're discussing genes not jeans? Nevermind.
Posted by: Patrick H at June 8, 2005 10:40 AMmore than one study have shown that women with leftists tendencies have lower rates of culmination than their conservative sisters.
more than 30 seconds and your showing off.
Posted by: cjm at June 8, 2005 10:59 AMPatrick: ROFL!
Posted by: Mike Morley at June 8, 2005 11:14 AMI'm just trying to picture this - prehistoric man is finishing a cigarette and getting ready to roll over and nod off, and prehistoric woman turns to him --
"This isn't going to work, Crog, you just don't do it for me."
Won't the NOW gang be surprised to hear that prehistoric woman was so empowered.
Posted by: flanman at June 8, 2005 11:54 AMi think the streamside interlude in "Quest For Fire" is probably a lot more accurate than this article.
Posted by: cjm at June 8, 2005 1:07 PMI have experienced good results wearing two layers of socks filled with ice cubes.
Also, horrible dismemberment fantasies work well.
Posted by: Eugene S. at June 8, 2005 1:36 PMThe study is all bolixed up. They did not control for the amount of a certain substance, that the women might have ingested, that destroys all sexual desire and response among women. That substance, commonly known as wedding cake, has no effect on men. ...
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 8, 2005 1:59 PMFor this to be true, it would require women to have been quite promiscous, and promiscuity is mostly a learned behavior, not ingrained in their being like it is with men. She might be more in Africa, but that is because of treats and attention she might receive as AIDS researchers have discovered. In other words, the lower the class, the more promiscuous, but for alternate, self-serving reasons.
Of course, one could say that our distant ancestors are similar to the wretched of the earth today, but still, to buy this, it seems you have to buy into the "woman is horny like man" view and I just don't.
robs: the great paradox with wedding cake, is that it has the desired effect on the bridesmaids (at least in my experience).
Posted by: cjm at June 8, 2005 2:58 PMLet me get this straight: Evolution designed women's experience of sex in order to select for men who could give women their attention for a whole 12 minutes? And Evolution only succeeded in getting men up to 2 and a half minutes?
I wonder why Evolution was on the woman's side?
Posted by: pj at June 8, 2005 3:37 PMIsn't it equally logical to say that Evolution designed men to select for women who would leave us alone after 2 and a half minutes?
Posted by: pj at June 8, 2005 3:57 PMRobert: My experience has always been that other women's wedding cakes are an aphrodisiac, particularly on unmarried women.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 8, 2005 4:46 PMDavid, CJM: The so-called bridesmaid effect is very temporary. The long term effect is invariable.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 8, 2005 6:30 PMhence the paradox. don't know why any young man would take a date to a wedding, invariably there will be rich pickings at the event.
Posted by: cjm at June 8, 2005 6:59 PM