So, What's It For?

I really don't know anything about female orgasms. Wait, that didn't sound right. Well, it may be right, but that's not what I meant. I mean: I don't know anything about the biological signifigance of the female orgasm. Nor have I really had reason to. But, I came across this fascinating article in Slate about the recently-published book "The Case Of The Female Orgasm," and it captured my attention. Well, the attention of the nerd in me who gets caught up in epistemological knots and overanalyzes things.

Apparently there is some sort of divide in the thinking about whether or how the female orgasm has a purpose. The adaptationists believe that the female orgasm serves some sort of biological purpose, physically aiding a woman to conceive children. Then, there are the "byproductists," who argue that the female orgasm is kind of a beneficial evolutionary left-over with no biological purpose. Elisabeth Lloyd, author of TCOTFO, reviews numerous studies and concludes that the byproductists are right: the female orgasm is the cool run-off of evolutionary/developmental processes. Lloyd shows somewhat persuasively that a female orgasm is probably just fun.

I always assumed the "byproductists" were right. I never tried to draw a parallel between the male and female orgasm. In fact, I thought us guys had been cursed with the biological burden of mixing our self-perpetuation (through children) with a shorter and probably less satisfying orgasm (unless you're some sort of tantric master). I am actually now rooting for the adaptationists to be proven right. If the female orgasm does aid conception, it would -- in an abstract way -- bring a nice reproductive symmetry to male and female orgasms, albeit one of minimal utility unless people are having sex to procreate. And, there is the fact that I ultimately find meaning and connections a smidge more satisfying than randomness.