EurekAlert have just published an article: Yale researchers shed light on evolutionary mystery: Origins of the female orgasm
The role of female orgasm, which plays no obvious role in human reproduction, has intrigued scholars as far back as Aristotle. Numerous theories have tried to explain the origins of the trait, but most have concentrated on its role in human and primate biology.
[...] Since there is no apparent association between orgasm and number of offspring or successful reproduction in humans, the scientists focused on a specific physiological trait that accompanies human female orgasm -- the neuro-endocrine discharge of prolactin and oxytocin -- and looked for this activity in other placental mammals. They found that in many mammals this reflex plays a role in ovulation.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 02 2016, @02:36AM
That seems very complicated compared to the simpler explanation that a female that likes it is going to get filled up a lot more often than a female who doesn't like it, and if liking it is inheritable, well... In theory I could ask my mother in law, in practice that isn't happening.
The obvious rebuttal here is that sex is often coerced by a dominant male and prohibited to anyone else, particularly in the past. Higher fertility from covert sex that is liked would aid in bringing in genes from a party other than the dominant male.
(Score: 2) by jcross on Tuesday August 02 2016, @11:52AM
Yes, but they're still the female's offspring, and as long as the "father" doesn't notice they're not his, they have a strong protector. This sort of arrangement is fairly common in other primates and is actually beneficial to the mother's genetic legacy.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:55PM
And the rebuttal to that is perfect selection pressure isn't necessary for evolution. OK only 10% of sex is due to the guy being really good at making her happy and the remaining 90% is pure bicep circumference of the dude. And averaged across an entire culture etc etc that's not really a problem for evolution to maximize.
Or rephrased, OK fine no positive force toward it, but you can't deny the negative force that the bottom 90% of male entertainers are not going to breed, she's going to enjoy the company of the talented ones. So if there hypothetically were a gene for "actively repelled by the female response" then that would get bred out pretty quickly in that scenario.