May 20, 2008
The Orgasmic Mind
Martin Portner in Scientific American:
The relative weights of sensory and emotional influences on orgasm may differ between the sexes, perhaps because of its diverging evolutionary origins. Orgasm in men is directly tied to reproduction through ejaculation, whereas female orgasm has a less obvious evolutionary role. Orgasm in a woman might physically aid in the retention of sperm, or it may play a subtler social function, such as facilitating bonding with her mate. If female orgasm evolved primarily for social reasons, it might elicit more complex thoughts and feelings in women than it does in men.
But does it? Researchers are trying to crack this riddle by probing changes in brain activity during orgasm in both men and women. Neuroscientist Gert Holstege of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands and his colleagues attempted to solve the male side of the equation by asking the female partners of 11 men to stimulate their partner’s penis until he ejaculated while they scanned his brain using positron-emission tomography (PET). During ejaculation, the researchers saw extraordinary activation of the ventral tegmental area (VTA), a major hub of the brain’s reward circuitry; the intensity of this response is comparable to that induced by heroin. “Because ejaculation introduces sperm into the female reproductive tract, it would be critical for reproduction of the species to favor ejaculation as a most rewarding behavior,” the researchers wrote in 2003 in The Journal of Neuroscience.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 12:24 PM | Permalink
Comments
Is the implication here that men need an incentive to procreate, but women don't? Sounds awfully close to defining rape as a biological imperative to me.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | May 20, 2008 2:17:42 PM
Yeah, Chris, sex is one of those areas where selectionism really looks weird, and where the "just-so" stories start to take on a particularly comedic character.
First and foremost, sexual reproduction is extremely inefficient relative to asexual reproduction. It's weird that it exists at all. If gene-propogation is all you want, it's a horrible idea to split into two genders and then have to evolve some instinctual mechanisms that induce them to pair up. Most theorists will just rattle off some twaddle about genetic diversity as the prime mover here, as though that couldn't be accomplished in a thousand more efficient ways.
The female orgasm stories are just hilarious.
or it may play a subtler social function, such as facilitating bonding with her mate.
And this would achieve... what exactly? How is genetic propagation aided by one partner becoming emotionally attached to the other, while the other buggers off and (given the supposed pressures selecting for male behaviour) shags as many birds as he can get his hands on? Wouldn't this hinder a woman's ability to function?
And then, we have...
If female orgasm evolved primarily for social reasons, it might elicit more complex thoughts and feelings in women than it does in men.
I mean, what does this even mean?
Posted by: Nick Smyth | May 20, 2008 7:36:11 PM
How else could genetic diversity be accomplished? You could have a gene, I suppose, that deliberately introduces transcription errors. But it's most likely to be a victim of itself, and be erroneously transcribed as an allele that favours accuracy.
Exactly how inefficient is sexual selection?
Posted by: Sagredo | May 20, 2008 10:37:53 PM
Don't know how recent or true it is, but I seem to remember reading somewhere the following rationale for the "supposed" greater intricacy of the female orgasm and the, again "supposed", difficulty in comsistently achieving it:
Due to the energy expense involved in child rearing, a female is definitely better served by a mate who is patient, caring and considerate and conversely willing to invest some time in her and any offspring. Given these requirements, the female orgasm is thought to have evolved its more complex nature to act as a screening process for mates who are willing to invest some more time in unselfishly assisting her to achieve climax and bond on an emotional level....
Anyone?
Posted by: MattInOz | May 21, 2008 1:07:45 AM
It's and will remain unsettled.
But fun to kick around --- tne subject in question: neither women nor their orgasm are meant to be hurt.
I wander,why if the subject is one of the instinctual three f's: Fear, food and reproduction, the pharmaceutical companies always lurk in the dark?
Just a thought.
Posted by: Felix E F Larocca MD | May 21, 2008 8:55:54 AM
I've never understood this aspect of biology terribly well, but I think that the reasons for the evolutionary transition from asexual to sexual reproduction are pretty well understood these days. Look it up on Wikipedia or some place.
As for male vs. female sexual behavior in our species, the physical requirements are pretty clear. Sperm and eggs need to get together somehow; men produce huge numbers of sperm, and women only a relatively few eggs. The sperm need to get out of his body and into hers, and for that to happen the penis needs to ...
Well, I don't need to explain the birds and bees at this point. Didn't we all learn that already? It seems to me that most of the psychological characteristics of sex in the two sexes are pretty obviously related to the mechanical aspects.
Of course, the mechanics of reproduction evolved in very different ways in many other species--fish, insects, etc.--but that's the way it went in mammals.
Posted by: JonJ | May 21, 2008 9:28:26 AM
Now that explains why i cry after those 3 minute tantristic orgasms!
Posted by: MissVolare | May 21, 2008 9:40:45 AM
The article seems to assume that women have no reason to have sex.
Women want two kinds of men: providers and fathers. And this is not the same man. Only a very small protion of men win the genetic game. Through generations of infidelity, most men go extinct.
The genetic advantage of men is that they invest very little in the conception. A single male can father thousands of babies, while that number is far more limited with women.
That is the reason why men exist. The desirable alfa male can bless thousands of babies with his superior genes.
Monogamy adds a complication. Women want the loyalty of their mate, yet it is not genetically benificial to be loyal to him.
So women have a large number of anatomical and behavioural strategies to prevent getting pregnant from their provider, and subconciously choose who of the men she sleeps with gets a bigger chance of surviving the game. An example of that is the female orgasm.
Posted by: PeterJohn | May 21, 2008 1:12:32 PM
JonJ,
I'm not sure if you were attempting to address the question raised separately by Nick and I of why (allegedly) men need an incentive to have sex, and women do not, but the concern is this:
There's no biological reason why ejaculation must be pleasurable. The question is why is it "obvious" that men would require this incentive, but not women? The not-so-tacit subtext here is that men are (and have always been) the ones making sexual decisions, which are passively assented to by women, who have neither a say nor (apparently) a preference in the matter.
In short, not only is rape biologically hardwired into our species, but female sexuality is a secondary, cultural development that does not exist on the same plane as the more primal, instinctual sexuality of the human male.
Hey science, reinforce sexual stereotypes much?
Posted by: Chris Schoen | May 21, 2008 2:04:36 PM
It seems to me that most of the psychological characteristics of sex in the two sexes are pretty obviously related to the mechanical aspects. - JonJ
...and that uncritical leap from biology to psychology is a major problem. What, exactly, is "obvious" about the link between biological mechanism and psychology, given that we have nothing even remotely close to a complete neuroscience, nothing resembling a coherent philosophy of mind, and (this is most important) no way to map genotypes to mental entities?
It is standard fact in all evolutionary biology that the geonome is not a "program" that specifies the features of the resulting phenotype. Rather, complex interactions with the organism's environment play a huge role in determining what the resulting organism looks like and how it behaves.
Yet, somehow, the (speculated) behaviour of prehistoric mammals is supposed to explain modern human interactions and emotions because THAT'S WHAT MADE OUR GENES HEY.
This "obviousness" you refer to is more likely ideology obscuring our vision and making us think that evolution is responsible for all human behaviour and experience when, in fact, cultural hypotheses have far more explanatory power.
Posted by: Nick Smyth | May 21, 2008 2:52:04 PM
@Chris Schoen
The view of women as sexually passive is not sexist, but in fact feminist. As women are the ones with the woomb, they are the sellers of sex. And as the sellers, they benefit from expensive sex, while men, as buyers, like it cheap.
In the economy of sex, the female is percieved to be a reluctant seller, which allows her to ask a high price. In reality, females are highly sexual, even more so than men. And certainly not monogamous. But to secure a large investment from a provider (his entire life), she must pretend to be sexually passive, reluctant, and loyal. This programmed deception of the beta males is the root of a whole bunch of funny behaviour in all cultures on the planet.
Posted by: PeterJohn | May 22, 2008 12:47:00 AM
For an expanded aspect of this issue:
Anorgasmia...
www.elportaldelasalud@elportaldelasalud.com
Posted by: Felix E F Larocca MD | May 22, 2008 3:58:21 AM
PeterJohn, you must be a real hit with the ladies.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | May 22, 2008 2:18:49 PM
I love when economic- and game-theory are applied to human relationships, as though we're all perfectly rational self-maximizing robots calculating our way through a series of rewards and punishments.
Thanks for the morning LOL, PJ.
Posted by: Nick Smyth | May 22, 2008 2:56:12 PM
The alternative to the economic human is either pure randomness or religion. Don't let morality get in the way.
I gained my insight from primatology (Frans de Waal). And it explaned my personal observations, while moral doctrines only left me confused and neurotic.
A lot depends on curcumstance and opportunity, obviously. Its a general guide to female sexuality, not a detailed guide to specific women.
Don't worry Chris, seducing women is easy. As women are in a constant search for alfa males, all you have to do is demonstrate high status in your behaviour. Good posture, relaxed, good eye contect, nonchalant, no-neediness, playful, dominant over other males,...
It's hard to except if you're looking for a mothers' warmth, or have invested a lot in love, but all women are easily corrupted. So easy in fact, that I've grown to be unimpressed and bored with the whole sex thing.
Try it yourself. You don't need to be rich or good looking. It's all perception. But be warned, the disappointment in womens' integrity might damage your libido.
Ask yourself this: "Are you so special that a women would be exclusively attracted to you?"
Off course not. We are all insignificant and easily replaced. The whole love thing is just an ego trip.
Posted by: PeterJohn | May 22, 2008 3:53:25 PM
The alternative to the economic human is either pure randomness or religion.
Wow. Keep 'em coming, friend. This stuff is pure, unadulterated gold.
But be warned, the disappointment in womens' integrity might damage your libido.
One wonders, Petey: why should anyone be disappointed in this (mythical) female behaviour when by your own description they're simply acting as anyone should expect them to? Why the appearance of the moral term "integrity" just after you've told us to abandon moral doctrines and stick to the facts?
Maybe, just maybe, your theorizing serves to legitimize your own neuroses or failures? After all, it's much easier to cast a negative shadow over an entire gender than it is to engage in honest self-criticism.
Too many hetero men have a total lack of self-confidence and mistake women's attraction to confident men (news flash: people are generally attracted to confident people in all spheres of life) as the search for some kind of "Alpha" male. Which leads me to my final observation...
I gained my insight from primatology (Frans de Waal)
...then you'll have to forgive us for questioning your grasp of this scientific theory when you can't spell "Alpha" correctly. Normally I don't pick on spelling, but this example pretty glaring when you're using primatology to denigrate women.
Posted by: Nick Smyth | May 22, 2008 6:45:19 PM
Geez, can't we all just "get it on"?
I appreciate W.Reich, who summed it up in numerous books, and was incarcerated for his wisdom. Sex is the third rail...
Posted by: MissVolare | May 23, 2008 9:02:06 AM
I can't find where I wrote "integrity". I also do not see the contradiction you do. Morality is an instinctual thing. When your rational side challenges your moral side, you can feel certain emotions, such as disappointment. I'm not a robot, you know.
Why does it denigrade women? Haven't you seen Sex In The City? Promisquity is to be celebrated. It is -your- moral instinct which tells you that saying women are sexually active (versus passive) is an insult. All I did was deny the holy status of sex, deny the "magic pussy" doctrine. If that devalues women as people, in your view, than that implies you only see a sexual value in women.
I say: "sex is cheap", you hear: "women are worthless". Perhaps you should befriend some women, and find out they are more than walking vaginas.
Spelling: That's how you spell "alpha" in Dutch, a dialect of which is the language I speak. I think I have a pretty good handle on English, keeping in mind it's a foreign language to me, and only one of the four foreign languages I use every so often.
The rest is Ad Hominem as well. My level of confidence has no effect on female psychology.
Posted by: PeterJohn | Jun 13, 2008 12:15:37 AM
Post a comment