Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Could the female orgasm be a happy remnant of evolution?
As a team of researchers pointed out, during intercourse the male orgasm serves an obvious reproductive function: Without it, ejaculation can't happen. But the reproductive role of female orgasm has been much less clear, because ovulation in humans occurs whether a woman has recently had an orgasm or not. So the very existence of the female orgasm in women has long been a physiological mystery. But now U.S. researchers (with the help of some sexually active rabbits) believe they may have solved this riddle.
The new research was led by Gunter Wagner, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Yale, and Mihaela Pavlicev, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati.
According to the investigators, part of the puzzle has been that the clitoris—the central locus for the female orgasm—is located a good distance above where the real "action" of reproductive intercourse occurs.
That led the team to look further back in the mammalian family tree. And as the two scientists reported in the Sept. 30 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the clitoris is much more central to intercourse for animals such as cats, rabbits and ferrets. In those mammals, the clitoris is located along the reproductive pathway used for intercourse. In fact, in female rabbits, clitoral stimulation and orgasm is actually required to initiate the ovulation needed to reproduce.
That's different from what happens in women, of course. So Wagner and Pavlicev theorized that, somewhere along the evolutionary timeline, the clitoris migrated away from the center of reproductive activity while retaining its ability to release pleasure-inducing hormones.
To test out their theory that the female orgasm is essential to procreation—at least in other mammals—the two scientists injected the anti-depressant fluoxetine (best known as Prozac) into female rabbits.
Since the drug is known to deplete a woman's ability to orgasm, the researchers theorized that, by extension, rabbits who got the shot might be less likely to ovulate. And that was the case: As the female rabbits' ability to orgasm foundered, they ovulated 30% less often, compared to females that didn't get the antidepressant.
More information: Mihaela Pavlicev et al. An experimental test of the ovulatory homolog model of female orgasm, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2019). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1910295116
(Score: 4, Insightful) by stretch611 on Wednesday October 02 2019, @06:04PM (12 children)
The more orgasms I can make a women have...
is the more likely she is willing to have more sex with me.
The more sex we have... the greater the chance of procreation.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @06:12PM (6 children)
Not if you happen to be a two-timing jerk.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @06:17PM (3 children)
Not so sure about that. Some women seem to like the bad boys. Just sayin'.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Wednesday October 02 2019, @06:24PM (2 children)
I wonder if those women are the most successful at raising offspring to adulthood?
People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @09:38PM (1 child)
Success to that point may be less likely, but the surviving offspring might be more successful. They will inherit the behavior of their father, which obviously works.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @09:59PM
Lest the philosophy of the PUAs and incels get out of hand here, the strategy actually does not work that well, as evidenced by the fact that most men do not use it as a primary strategy. While it'sa reasonable strategy to take such an opportunity if it comes up, which it certainly sometimes does, it doesn't really come up all that often. (And it also comes with downsides, like how the woman's angry husband or father might kill you).
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday October 02 2019, @06:26PM (1 child)
A jerk does not necessarily have to be restricted to only "two" timing. The variable n should be used.
People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday October 03 2019, @12:32AM
This would also account for the fact that guys bragging about their sexual prowess to strangers are frequently zero-timing jerks.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Wednesday October 02 2019, @07:59PM (1 child)
Somebody give this guy a retroactive research grant.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 02 2019, @09:59PM
He would then need research subject volunteers -- who would be paid from that grant.
People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @09:27PM (2 children)
You can stop right there. We all know you are a shut-in living in your mom's basement.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Wednesday October 02 2019, @09:50PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 03 2019, @01:09AM
Troll?!? Damn! I was aiming for +1, Funny!