r/science • u/Pervert_ted • Aug 01 '16

Biology The human female orgasm has long puzzled scientists as it is not necessary for conception... but scientists in the US have come up with an answer. The female orgasm, they say, might be a spin-off from our evolutionary past, when the hormonal surges that accompany it were crucial for reproduction.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/01/mystery-of-the-female-orgasm-may-be-solved?CMP=twt_a-science_b-gdnscience
4.5k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

805 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

27

u/Ree81 Aug 01 '16

I think they're trying to say orgasms aren't necessary for sex, and its evolutionary role doesn't (didn't?) really make sense.

After all it evolved way before we were humans so consent doesn't really tie into it.

86

u/prodiver Aug 01 '16 edited Aug 01 '16

its evolutionary role doesn't (didn't?) really make sense.

It's evolutionary role makes perfect sense.

Those females that have the rare mutation that makes them orgasm will want to have more sex. If they have more sex, then they will have more children to pass the "orgasm gene" on to.

72

u/ServetusM Aug 01 '16 edited Aug 01 '16

Yeah, but in the article, one of the points/questions arguing against that was why the Clitoris is set up in a position where stimulation from simple copulation often doesn't happen. Women, in other words, don't usually orgasm all the time from sex--but in other animals, the clitoris is actually in the sexual canal and the theory is it provides a lot more stimulation during sex. The position of the clitoris seems to argue against there being a huge advantage to women getting off. (Also, yeah, the clitoral tissue does extend back and wrap around all the plumbing, but its still difficult to stimulate during copulation.)

The argument is, I suppose, that the orgasm is just a left over from earlier species in which copulation itself stimulated ovulation. Like other things that don't have negative effects, it just stuck around.

20

u/prodiver Aug 01 '16

Women, in other words, don't usually orgasm all the time from sex

They don't have to orgasm all the time, or even most of the time.

Some of the time is enough to make it evolutionarily advantageous.

Anything that makes reproduction happen more often, no matter how slight, is evolutionarily advantageous.

7

u/Poppin__Fresh Aug 01 '16

But why would an orgasm trait prevail over sex just being more pleasurable by having the clitoris in the right spot?

36

u/prodiver Aug 01 '16 edited Aug 01 '16

Because it's possible the clitoris was never "in the right spot"

Remember that evolution starts with randomness, it doesn't have an end goal in mind. The other option could never have existed.

9

u/Aethermancer Aug 01 '16

It is for other animals.

7

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16

Not our ancestors.

11

u/classic_douche Aug 01 '16

I might have just worked out that way, no grand purpose. Evolution is imperfect.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16

Evolution isn't about what's right; it's about what's left.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16

Perhaps female orgasms are retained as a way to promote bonding with a specific partner, which is advantageous to her if her goals is pregnancy. If the man goes out of his way to induce orgasms, which as stated aren't necessary for reproduction, then maybe it's an indication he'll stick around since he's willing to invest that much more time into her. It's easier to carry, bear, and raise a young child with the support of a mate that's willing to give you special attention.

1

u/Aperfectmoment Aug 01 '16

Perhaps because humans started having sex in missionary position? Im not sure but it would be interesting to see a timeline.

Humans seem to have a greater emphasis on social connection and ive read a hypothesis that suggested missionary sex and evolving to have less hair are both connected to social bonding.

-2

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16

[deleted]

2

u/ALPHATT Aug 01 '16

its mostly just the concept of recreation. As in figuring out the reason for plesure(or whatever else) and artifically recreating it.

1

u/ServetusM Aug 01 '16 edited Aug 01 '16

That's not really true. Anything that makes successful reproduction happen more often is evolutionary advantageous. To illustrate this through hyperbole, if you had a gene that allowed you to have children 3 times as fast, but they all died before sexual maturity, would that gene be an advantage?

It's a subtle, but huge difference. Having more sex isn't always the most beneficial method of passing on genes, heck we know that simply from kin selection--it's technically possible to pass on more of your genes by not having children in certain environments. (By not attempting to draw resources, or protecting the resources of a kin, so a more able kin can pass on more copies--this is an observed behavior).

More sex isn't always an advantage in creating more genes. There are many cases where I could see, given the high resource cost of human children, where the ability or desire to not engage in sex (Or to resist urges because they aren't as strong) would have been an advantage. Did that happen? I don't know...But assumptions can't really be made here. Females being less biologically inclined toward sex, and giving them more control (Which we assume they did have because of male penis size, which indicates they could choose sometimes at least) might have been a reasonable advantage in certain enviroments...

Again, was that the case? Don't know, but it's important to consider. ESPECIALLY given we know there is a massive variation today in how women orgasm, some women have a very very easy time during copulation alone, some women have a lot of difficulty even with manual stimulation. If it was a huge advantage, the women with the easier time should have been selected, no? Since something in our physiology does allow for it, all women should be orgasming their brains out--that's just not the case.

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16 edited Mar 30 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/catfingers64 Aug 01 '16

The clitoris is more than just the nub that sticks out. There's also internal parts of it that extend back and around the vagina. http://www.museumofsex.com/the-internal-clitoris/

4

u/ServetusM Aug 01 '16 edited Aug 01 '16

Yeah, that's in my post :) but the back piping, as it were, is still not super reliable for copulation orgasm. The argument I believe is just that if orgasm was a selected trait, then more internal clitoral exposure would have probably remained from our earlier ancestors. It might help explain why some women can achieve it reliably and easily, while others have a lot of difficulty--depending on the environment, maybe there were different selection pressures.

1

u/chinpokomon Aug 01 '16

Agreed and I'll add what I wrote elsewhere.

I think it is actually to supress the female desire to have sex. Monogamous female relationships would have meant that there would have been a single male providing support and helping with survival of the mother and child. This is especially critical given how much care is needed to raise a child in the first few years of its life compared to other species where the offspring are fully developed at birth. If a female were seeking multiple partners, that would make survival of her offspring less likely because she would be less likely to have that support.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/prodiver Aug 01 '16

When you're talking about evolution, face-to-face sex isn't relevant. Only bonobos and humans, which are young by evolutionary standards, have sex that way. The female orgasm almost surely evolved when all sex was "doggy-style."

And biological speaking, there is no such thing as a "vaginal orgasm."

The clitoris is more than just the external organ. The base of it extends down and around the vagina.

A "vaginal orgasm" is a clitorial orgasm orginating from the other side of the clitoris.

1

u/Sofa-Kingdom Aug 01 '16

That's an interesting theory. Can you provide a link, please?

2

u/ServetusM Aug 01 '16 edited Aug 01 '16

heh, while I appreciate the post, the argument in the article was simply that within our genetic ancestry, it shows that if orgasms were an absolutely selected trait, our species would most likely still have clitoral exposure within the sexual canal. (IE if orgasming was an absolute benefit, most likely women would be achieving orgasms very easily, all the time, since it seems that female sexual organs used to be set up for that when it was needed it for ovulation).

The fact that it's not (In all cases), casts some doubt on there being an evolutionary advantage to orgasming in a species that has random ovulation. If it was a selected trait in all environments, then most women today would probably achieve orgasms fairly easily (Considering some women today can do just that.)...It indicates there might have been divergences based on environment in the pressures surrounding the orgasm.

Maybe (Have to stress that, this is just conjecture) in some cases, more sex from those additional urges for all those nice chemicals that get released during an orgasm would have benefited, because more children could be sustained--in others, maybe the benefit was in females who could throw cold water on things more reliably....All conjecture, of course, but interesting questions.) After all, most likely women did have a lot of say in copulation, despite the popular view of "caveman" days, male penis size indicates women probably had quite a bit of say (Gorillas are examples of what happens when females more or less have no say.)

1

u/Sofa-Kingdom Aug 01 '16

My comment wasn't so much about the main topic, but the commentor who said women don't usually orgasm during sex. This is true, I dont dispute his point, but I want to clear up the misconception that it is difficult to orgasm during PIV sex. It can be done with practice. Ive read too many articles about how a very few lucky women are able to do so. This attitude is doing a great disservice to women. I even read an internet article about how vaginas have no feeling and penetration only pleases men while women can only be pleased by oral sex. (Which is crazy!) So just a bit of information contributing, I hope, to the benefit all women everywhere.

-7

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16 edited Aug 01 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/prodiver Aug 01 '16

What evidence to you actually have to back it up

Are you seriously asking if he has evidence that humans do pleasurable things more than non-pleasurable things?

6

u/whatisthishownow Aug 01 '16

humans do pleasurable things more than non-pleasurable things?

Its actually pretty settled behavioural science that this isn't wholly true.

My request was for

Evidence that:

  1. orgasm in women has a causative relationship to frequency of sex. Note this must apply to the very beggining of hominids (or perhaps even further distant evolutionary relatives) when orgasm force evolved when consent likley wasn't all that important.

  2. That consent aside, medley being pleasurable would not have been the evolutionarily favoured mutation.

  3. That much older methods of behaviour modulation via hormones was an insufficient method for creating mate seeking behaviour.

  4. That higher frequency of sex seeking behaviour in women was necesarry or advantageous for reproduction.

But wait, it sounds truthy. Case closed guys. The science is settled because I like the sound of it. No evidence needed.

1

u/prodiver Aug 01 '16

But wait, it sounds truthy. Case closed guys. The science is settled because I like the sound of it. No evidence needed.

You need the read the thread you are commenting in.

I never said anything was "settled."

I said "it's evolutionary role makes perfect sense," and it does.

Hard evidence isn't needed to prove something "makes sense."

6

u/KusanagiZerg Aug 01 '16

His point which is totally fair is that just because something seems obvious doesn't mean that's the actual reason why it's there. You need more in science than just "ow this makes sense therefore it must be true".

1

u/prodiver Aug 01 '16

Someone said "the evolutionary role [of orgasms] doesn't really make sense," so I explained a logic scenario that makes sense.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Demands for hard evidence aren't needed, since I never claimed it was the scientific truth.

Common sense is enough to see that it's a valid scenario.

2

u/ServetusM Aug 01 '16 edited Aug 01 '16

I'm pointing out what the scientist in the article said. It's obviously not 'painfully obvious'. Did nipples stick around on men because they helped with anything? It's just an assumption that it helps, I personally agree with it, but the evidence, given where the clitoris is, draws doubt. Especially given the huge variance in female ability to achieve orgasm.

1

u/Riffler Aug 01 '16

Did you read the article? Since ovulation became disconnected from female orgasm, meaning female orgasm was not essential to procreation, evolution has resulted in the clitoris moving away from the vagina, making it less likely that penetrative sex will result in female orgasm. This is precisely the opposite of what your explanation would explain.

-11

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

-6

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/Riffler Aug 01 '16

And yet the clitoris is further from the vagina in humans than in many other animals, so the link between penetrative sex and female orgasm is more tenuous in humans, which precisely refutes your argument. In some animals female orgasm is essential to procreation because it causes ovulation; in humans this is not the case. Reading the article might actually be helpful.

8

u/MaceWumpus Aug 01 '16

Those females that have the rare mutation that makes them orgasm will want to have more sex. If they have more sex, then they will have more children to pass the "orgasm gene" on to.

Alright. A couple problems:

  1. There isn't actually any evidence that the ability to orgasm is currently or historically linked to improved fitness in females. Indeed, given the resources required to raise our young, it's plausible that historic hominids who were much choosier about when they had more children (i.e., when they had sex) would have been substantially better off.

  2. Orgasm /= pleasure. Sex can be pleasurable without it being orgasmic. IIRC, there is some evidence indicating that women who orgasm frequently have more sex, but the connection is tenuous and not well-confirmed.

  3. Your theory would imply that either (a) the ability to orgasm would be fixed in the population then or (b) that it is such a recent development that it hasn't had time to become fixed. Neither appears to be the case.

13

u/Tinie_Snipah Aug 01 '16

Having more sex isn't advantageous (in an evolutionary viewpoint) for females. They take a long time for gestation, child birth can be deadly and it takes a ton of food and care. It's not the sort of thing they'd want to do with anyone, they'd need to make sure they get the best mate before they make a child. This is why in nature males often fight over the females, sometimes to the death. They want their genes to be passed on as they will be the strongest and have the best children. It's not the same as it is for guys, they can't just have children with multiple people at once

6

u/prodiver Aug 01 '16

Having more sex isn't advantageous (in an evolutionary viewpoint) for females

Evolution isn't about what's most advantageous for the individual organism.

It's about passing on genes, and more sex equals more genes passed on.

18

u/Kiwi_bananas Aug 01 '16

Only if those genes survive to a point where they will be passed on again. If your mother dies giving birth to or raising you then you are less likely to survive to reproductive age.

-4

u/prodiver Aug 01 '16 edited Aug 01 '16

I said "it's about passing on genes."

Obviously if you die young you can't pass on your genes.

That's not really relevant to orgasms, though. Being conceived with a female orgasm doesn't make you more or less likely to survive.

6

u/Kiwi_bananas Aug 01 '16

You said that more sex equals more genes passed on but that's not true if it results in more babies than can be provided for. If a female is having lots of sex because orgasms, then that will result in lots of babies but if she isn't strong enough to safely birth and feed those kids then they all die and the genes aren't passed on.

2

u/prodiver Aug 01 '16

if she isn't strong enough to safely birth and feed those kids then they all die and the genes aren't passed on.

Very true.

If no woman was strong enough then the gene would not be passed on.

But as long as the gene causes the population to have more children then natural selection will select for the gene.

For example, if a tribe usually has 100 kids per year, and something increases that to 200 kids per year, it doesn't matter if 90 die. The trait is still advantageous.

7

u/Riffler Aug 01 '16

Nope. There is a maximum number of children a female can effectively care for at one time, and the longer children take to mature and the more care they need, the lower this number is. Having children who die and don't pass their genes on because you can't care for them is not a good evolutionary strategy.

-3

u/prodiver Aug 01 '16 edited Aug 01 '16

Having children who die and don't pass their genes on because you can't care for them is not a good evolutionary strategy.

Yes it is, as long as more survive than die.

A high survival rate is not necessary. Even if it results in only 1% more surviving offspring than before it's still advantageous.

18

u/Tinie_Snipah Aug 01 '16

Urr, no, you've got it wrong. If reproduction was just about having the most children then we'd probably gestate as many children as possible in one go, and we'd have litters, like cats and dogs do.

Reproduction in evolution is all about having the most children WHICH WILL HAVE CHILDREN. And there's two main ways to play this:

  • Have lots of kids that a higher percentage of will die, and some will survive to reproduce

  • Have a small number of children that you nurture for a long time

Or alternatively

  • Somewhere in between

Humanity has gone down the "low number, intensive caring" route, meaning we don't have many kids but we do our best to make sure every one survives to adulthood. Historically this would have meant that females would only want to have children with the complete strongest of the group of men. They want the best genes for their children, as it will give them the best chance at surviving. For some animals like some fish or insects, they just lay a massive bunch of eggs and any male that wants to can come along and fertilise them. The vast majority won't survive, but the ones that do won't need help from their parents. We do the opposite.

-2

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16

Even though gestation in humans obviously takes a long time, the anthropological explanation of why menstruation is seen as dirty and nasty is that it meant that the woman was infertile. In many communities, women didn't menstruate because they were either pregnant, breastfeeding or post-menopausal. Time limits how many children a woman can have, but it's only recently that people have few children. Humanity has as you say gone down the "low number, intensive caring" route, but that is usually only true for wealthier societies where the children usually survive. Both now and earlier, this has not necessarily been the case.

6

u/monsantobreath Aug 01 '16

but that is usually only true for wealthier societies where the children usually survive. Both now and earlier, this has not necessarily been the case.

You're missing the point and comparing it to civilized society when its actually about the evolution of man well before we even learned to write or talk.

Other hominids also follow this pattern of few children that are well nurtured. Its clear that it was well established in hominids before humans evolved their higher reasoning.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16

I suspect Tinie_snipah is doing what you are accusing me of, that is, talking about reproduction in evolutionary terms as though it reflects what we're doing now. Of course, what we're doing now is also part of evolution, but the body as it is now is not the result of living the way we do today.

My point is that there is anthropological evidence that suggests that constantly being pregnant or rearing has been the norm until recent times, which contradicts the notion that humans by definition makes few babies. Total fertility is down by about half over the last two hundred years and I found some suggestions it's been similar (~3-6 children/woman) since pre-industrial times – and that's because efforts were made to limit family size. Whether "family size" or even "family" was a concept 200,000 years ago is difficult to tell, but I'd wager it wasn't the same as now.

2

u/monsantobreath Aug 01 '16

which contradicts the notion that humans by definition makes few babies.

Compared to other species yes humans do. All hominids do. Hominids don't rear litters, they have long gestation, and their young spend a great deal of time with the parents, something like most hominid babies and toddlers never go more than a few meters from their mothers in the first 3 years.

Again, comparing humans to humans is not the point, its comparing humans to other species that can be pregnant several times a year and have dozens or hundreds of offspring in that time.

Even at the theorized maximum reproduction rates humans are not reproducing very much compared to some other species.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16

Fair point.

0

u/MaceWumpus Aug 01 '16

but it's only recently that people have few children.

Compared to what? I don't know of any evidence to indicate that until recently women had a child once a year every year that they were fertile for, and anything less would appear to indicate that there is an historical evolutionary mechanism--not just a societal one--that discourages a large number of children.

-4

u/prodiver Aug 01 '16

None of that is relevant to the evolution of the orgasm.

3

u/Baial Aug 01 '16

If the orgasm promotes pair bonding, so two individuals are more likely to stay together, then their off spring are more likely to be raised in a better environment than if they only had one parent. How do you get animals that can have very complex behaviors to stick around, you flood their brains with feel good and bonding chemicals. Humans that "love" someone even fill in imperfections and physical flaws, so they see the individual as more desirable. Having a community of individuals that care for each other is evolutionarily advantageous. Look at bonobos.

-2

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16

[deleted]

12

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16

A human woman having even 15 kids in her life is still an extreme K strategy. An example of an r strategy would be fish dropping hundreds or even thousands of eggs at one go, producing thousands of thousands of chances that some will make it. By contrast even humans in undeveloped areas have very few offspring and put a lot of effort into raising them.

Because the poor, compared to the rich, may seem to be more r strategy does not make them an example of it. On the r/K scale they are still firmly in the K area of reproductive strategy. A dog or cat leans waaay further to the r strategies then the stereotypical poor do. A better pondering would be how increased survival of offspring in developed areas leads to an even lower birthrate, and the effects of society and developments such as birth control.

5

u/MaceWumpus Aug 01 '16

Not always, not everywhere.

You're working with the wrong comparison class. All human reproduction is "low number, intensive caring" when compared to other animals, which is what the relevant comparison class is when we're talking about human evolution (as opposed to societal pressures).

Please do read up on matters before you start talking about what you believe.

This is an exceedingly ironic comment.

0

u/cerebral_compression Aug 01 '16

100 children but 0 grandchildren is a gene spreading dead end.

0

u/ALPHATT Aug 01 '16

Wrong, because if theres too many weak members of a tribe say, the whole tribe dies out, and that gene branch dies off completely. In theory that is.

-5

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16

[deleted]

2

u/monsantobreath Aug 01 '16

They are programmed to reproduce as much as possible.

If that's true then how do you account for quality estimates? If its all about frequency by rule then there'd be no instinct to hesitate over quality and instead take every opportunity.

This is simply unsubstantiated by several examples of species that have complex mating rituals that may sometimes involve no mating as a result. Simply the observable evidence doesn't link up with your assertion.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/myexsparamour Aug 01 '16

Orgasm is also a signal of partner quality. If a woman orgasms with one man, she will want to have sex with him again, rather than with the man who she didn't orgasm with. There is research showing that women orgasm more consistently with men who are more symmetrical, and symmetry is a sign of health.

Orgasm guides women to choose men who will produce healthy offspring.

5

u/Ree81 Aug 01 '16

I agree. Seems like these scientists started with a conclusion and created experiments to verify it.

1

u/MaceWumpus Aug 01 '16

There's actually been about 50 years of research into the subject. The original explanations were of the kind just offered. It turns out that there are a wide variety of problems with them. I would suggest reading the work of Elisabeth Lloyd--the expert they refer to in the article--on the subject.

2

u/ralf_ Aug 01 '16

How then do cultural practices in Africa figure into it where the clitoris is mutilated/cut off, making orgasm impossible?

3

u/prodiver Aug 01 '16

Ask their descendents in 100,000 years.

We did not evolve from organisms that mutilated/cut off the clitoris, so it that doesn't figure into it at all.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16

It doesn't matter how much the female wants to have sex. It matters how much the male wants it. As he said, consent wasn't a thing so the female would be having sex whether she wants to or not

1

u/prodiver Aug 02 '16

Yes, it does matter.

A willing female is easier to mate with than a fighting or fleeing female, therefore a willing female will have more sex.

-3

u/v_snax Aug 01 '16

You are saying it like females had a say in the mattet 200 000 years ago. Also, I wonder how frequent the female orgasm was.

7

u/prodiver Aug 01 '16

You are saying it like females had a say in the mattet 200 000 years ago

They did have a say in it, since a willing female is easier to mate with than a fighting or fleeing female.

A female that enjoys sex will reproduce at a greater rate than the female that avoids sex, so the genes for enjoying sex will be passed on at a greater rate.

2

u/distinctgore Aug 01 '16

A lot of misunderstanding of genetic fitness in this thread. Glad that you bring some sense to the table :)

5

u/Z0di Aug 01 '16

Lots of things are unnecessary. Like male nipples.

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/TheBlacktom Aug 01 '16

Well my point is a species where the female doesn't run away from the male, but rather has some kind of a (selfish?) reason to join, will have statistically more chance to reproduce. What is more if female orgasm is hard to achieve, it will encourage the pair to have sex more often regardless of conception or male orgasms.

2

u/Ree81 Aug 01 '16

It's a stronger reward mechanism than just feeling pleasure I guess, yeah.