On Tue, 31 May 2005, Charles Brown wrote:
> By the way, this doesn't contradict Gould's discussion of "spandrels" .
> Gould doesn't maintain that every human trait is like a "spandrel". Gould
> still holds that _some_ traits _are_ the result of direct selection. So, the
> point here would be that female orgasm is not a "spandrel-like" trait. It is
> a trait that is selected for. I would maintain that of all traits, those
> directly related to fertility are the most likely to involve actual
> selection.
That's the crucial question: is it true in human history that women who had orgasms during intercourse tended to have better reproductive success? CB's argument assumes that female orgasm must have emerged because it encouraged women to more frequently have sex and thus reproduce. However, for many female primates (including humans!), the act of intercourse does not automatically or even typically provoke orgasms. To put it bluntly, a primate male slamming away for a few minutes doesn't necessarily get anywhere near the clitoris, and thus no female orgasm. If female orgasm was the kind of obvious adaptation CB suggests, intercourse--not direct clitoral stimulation--would be the quickest and easiest way for a woman to have an orgasm.
In short, I still think female orgasms are a spandrel. If women were motivated by solely by orgasms to have sexual activity, let's face it--vaginal intercourse wouldn't be anywhere near the top of the list.
> To put it
> vulgarly, "fucking ability is more important than fighting ability in
> measuring Darwinian fitness."
But even more important than "fucking ability": support and nurturing of offspring after they're born. --My reproductive success is pretty low if I fuck many women, have many offspring, and they all die because I'm not around to protect and feed them, yes?
Miles