[lbo-talk] New Sex drugs

Bill Bartlett billbartlett at dodo.com.au
Sat May 28 17:19:26 PDT 2005


At 1:17 PM -0700 28/5/05, andie nachgeborenen wrote:


>Everythging is obvious to Bill and anyone who
>disagrees with him is an idiot. Wish I knew so much.
>
>The problem isn't that the parental bond theory is a
>just so story, the problem is that it doesn't explain
>wht women would have evolved the capacity for orgasm.
>Just because sex is good for her,a ssuiming he has
>somew clue about what to do, which, as I remarked, is
>more than what most men do, doesn't even begin to
>suggest that she will want to stand by her man rather
>than running around all over town getting orgasms from
>all and sundry. Sigh.

Sigh indeed. No, it doesn't imply any such thing. And I didn't suggest that the female orgasm would have the effect of keeping a woman faithful to one man. It didn't even occur to me, I have no idea where you and Mike conjured that idea from.

The question is not (as Miles puts it:

"If a woman can have an orgasm with any sexual partner, male, female

or herself (remember that intercourse is definitely not necessary!),

why on earth would she be compelled to form a pair bond with just one

man?"

The question is, if women were not interested in sex outside their fertile period, what consequences would that have for them creating a long-term pair bond with a human male, most of whom want sex all the time. The female orgasm is no help to men trying to keep women in line of course, but it does help women to keep men somewhat in line.

Sorry to offend you by suggesting this is obvious. Obviously it isn't obvious. ;-)

Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list