>Here is a theory (?) for you: the female orgasm may be, in
>evolutionary terms, on the way out:
>
>One possibility, Hrdy said, is that orgasm in women may have been an
>adaptive trait in our prehuman ancestors. "But we separated from our
>common primate ancestors about 7 million years ago," she said.
>
>"Perhaps the reason orgasm is so erratic is that it's phasing out," Hrdy said.
And perhaps not. I can't think of any reason for the female orgasm might mitigate against survival. Even if it is useless, that doesn't mean it would disappear. Male nipples are definitely useless, but they aren't any great hindrance to survival either, so they persist.
Hardy doesn't seem to have the slightest grasp of how evolution works. The "Darwinian logic behind the female orgasm" is hardly "elusive", it seems fairly obvious to me that it might support the bond between parents over the extended period necessary for humans to rear their children. The "Darwinian logic" is that children being supported by two parents generally have an advantage over children supported only by one parent and sex seems to help to keep mother and father on the team. I would have thought it unnecessary to spell out that an ongoing sex life is more likely if both parents are enjoying it.
The myopic Dr Lloyd seems only interested in immediate physical implications, like whether an orgasm assists conception. Finding nothing persuasive of the sort, she leaps to silly conclusions about it being a useless evolutionary appendage.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas