The political/historical/'philosophical' question here is that of teleology and the way in which assumptions of teleology sneak into thought. Sam puts purpose in quotes, as is wise, but I would be happier were he to incorporate a specific argument as to the non-teleological nature of his overall argument.
Carrol
Sam Pawlett wrote:
> t byfield wrote:
> >
> > it's neither more nor less of a stretch than to fit any other
> > organ or variation thereof into a theory of adaptation. i mean,
> > if you can't find an ideological 'purpose' for a physiological
> > phenomenon, then (a) the phenomenon is contingent, (b) your
> > theory is contingent, or (c) both are contingent. answer: (c).
>
> The question is finding a physiological purpose for a physiological
> phenomenon. Some, like Donald Symons, even argue that the female orgasm
> itself is non-adaptive because most female mammals do not experiece
> orgasm in ordinary copulation. They only experiece orgasm through
> clitoral stimulation.
>
> or
>
> "clitoral orgasm is a paradox not only for the traditions of Darwinian
> biology but also for the bias of utility that underlies all functionally
> based theories of evolution and,in addition, the much older tradition of
> natural theology, that saw God's handiwork in the exquisite fit of an
> organic form to function."
>
> "We (men) simply cannot abide by the idea --though it flows from obvious
> biology-- that a women's sexual pleasure might not arise from our own
> coital efforts."
>
> "the clitoris is the homologue of the penis--it is the same organ,
> endowed with the same anatomical organization and capacity of
> response...the clitoris and the penis are one and the same organ,
> identical in early form, but later enlarged in male fetuses through the
> action of testosterone. Similarly, the labia majora of women and scrotal
> sacs of men are the same structure, indistinguishable in young embryos,
> but later enlarged, folded over and fused along the midline in male
> fetuses."
> S.J. Gould, "Tits and Clits".
>
> > oh, i like this: if the phenomenon doesn't fit the totalizing
> > theory, it's a 'hangover.'
>
> Well then, what explains its existence? Adaptation is one evolutionary
> force among many (a minority view.)
>
> > and your theory on the glans of the penis would be? oh, and
> > don't forget to explain how pressure on the frenum can, um,
> > suppress ejaculation--surely there's a functionalist expla-
> > nation for that, say, to encourage e-commerce or something.
> >
> All adaptationist arguments are functional in structure. The beneficial
> effects of having x explain x's existence.
>
> > i say that by way of avoiding taking up your suggestion that
> > pleasure for females is a 'hangover from a previous period.'
> >
>
> No. The point is that pleasure for females is divorced from
> procreation making a Darwinian explanation unlikely.
>
> > indeed. and male nipples are a signpost on the road to, oh,
> > never mind...
>
> yes, your ancestors probably lactated.
>
> Sam Pawlett