<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
<channel>
<title>
Articles Tagged ‘epistomology’ - Less Wrong Discussion
</title> <link>http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/</link>
<description></description>
<item>
<title>Is there evolutionary selection for female orgasms?</title>
<link>http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/2vl/is_there_evolutionary_selection_for_female_orgasms/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/2vl/is_there_evolutionary_selection_for_female_orgasms/</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 01:07:31 +1100</pubDate>
<description>
Submitted by &lt;a href="http://lesswrong.com/user/NancyLebovitz"&gt;NancyLebovitz&lt;/a&gt;
&amp;bull;
5 votes
&amp;bull;
&lt;a href="http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/2vl/is_there_evolutionary_selection_for_female_orgasms/#comments"&gt;22 comments&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;&lt;strong&gt;Elisabeth Lloyd:&lt;/strong&gt; I don&amp;#x2019;t actually know. I think that it&amp;#x2019;s at a very problematic intersection of topics. I mean, you&amp;#x2019;re taking the intersection of human evolution, women, sexuality &amp;#x2013; once you take that intersection you&amp;#x2019;re bound to kind of get a disaster. More than that, when evolutionists have looked at this topic, I think that they&amp;#x2019;ve had quite a few items on their agenda, including telling the story about human origins that bolsters up the family, monogamy, a certain view of female sexuality that&amp;#x2019;s complimentary to a certain view of male sexuality. And all of those items have been on their agenda and it&amp;#x2019;s quite visible in their explanations.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;gt;Natasha Mitchell:&lt;/strong&gt; I guess it&amp;#x2019;s perplexed people partly, too, because women don&amp;#x2019;t need an orgasm to become pregnant, and so the question is: well, what&amp;#x2019;s its purpose? Well, is its purpose to give us pleasure so that we have sex, so that we can become pregnant, according to the classic evolutionary theories?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;gt;Elisabeth Lloyd:&lt;/strong&gt; The problem is even worse than it appears at first because not only is orgasm not necessary on the female side to become pregnant, there isn&amp;#x2019;t even any evidence that orgasm makes any difference at all to fertility, or pregnancy rate, or reproductive success. It seems intuitive that a female orgasm would motivate females to engage in intercourse which would naturally lead to more pregnancies or help with bonding or something like that, but the evidence simply doesn&amp;#x2019;t back that up.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/mind/stories/s1382386.htm&quot;&gt;The whole discussion.&lt;/a&gt; It backs my theory that using evolution to explain current traits seriously tempts people to make things up.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;a href="http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/2vl/is_there_evolutionary_selection_for_female_orgasms/#comments"&gt;22 comments&lt;/a&gt;
</description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>