Evolution and the Female Orgasm

• Is Lloyd confused about the evolutionary explanations? Explain with reference to the evolution of female orgasm.

INTRODUCTION

For every claim that we can make with regards to human nature, one could find viable reason to propose that the claim is an evolutionary adaptation. In the event of a female orgasm, Elisabeth A. Lloyd has investigated the history of scientific research pertaining to it and carefully refuted the attached theories on the basis that they were founded on frail supporting data, fallible assumptions and overwhelming biases. In its place, Lloyd reiterates the hypothesis forwarded by Donald Symons – which is a sound theory for the existence of female orgasm that is contentiously absent of an evolutionary explanation, although this does not imply that she is confused about the notion, nor does she flatly reject any possibility of it. It is my view that her position on the subject is humble and stands flexible enough to be altered, reviewed or completely withdrawn in the face of justifiable scientific data.

EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS

Simply put, an evolutionary explanation is an observed change in an entity’s process in order to better facilitate its future progression and survival. For our concerns – it is a fact of biological and physiological operation that bares a clear link to the evolutionary equation of humans.

It is important to identify that many early researchers of the subject concluded that sexuality of any sort bore a direct linking to reproduction. Lloyd notes that the bias assumption stems from early observations and conclusions regarding the behaviours of non-human female subjects. In such subjects, the classic model represents the hormonal influences on their sexual activities. In other words, only when such subjects are in oestrus (a hormonal state in the menstrual cycle) will they engage in acts of mating. The implication being that outside of oestrus any activity, that might be indicative of sexual tendencies, should be disregarded as idiosyncratic behaviour related to that subjects social environment. – because not doing would threaten their assumptions that tie sexuality closely with reproduction. This, Lloyd points out, is an example of erroneous research bias typing reproduction and female sexuality too closely together.

Distinct from non-human subjects, the human females sexual nature does not encompass a strict hormonal regime. Despite this, the consensus amongst evolutionists is that peak sexual interest coincides with peak sexual fertility amongst females. Again, we see that there is a strong presumption that sexuality and reproduction are close tied together. It appears to be the default position within this realm, yet Lloyd dismisses this conclusion on the basis that it simply