Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Genes drive ability to orgasm: Scientists say DNA exerts strong influence on whether women climax
Nature Magazine ^ | 8 June 2005 | Roxanne Khamsi

Posted on 06/08/2005 3:40:51 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-166 next last
To: PatrickHenry

There is an Andrew Dice Clay line in here somewhere.


101 posted on 06/08/2005 9:49:03 AM PDT by Nov3 ("This is the best election night in history." --DNC chair Terry McAuliffe Nov. 2,2004 8p.m.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Funny, I find it much easier to orgasm without genes (jeans) :)


102 posted on 06/08/2005 9:52:22 AM PDT by IamConservative (To worry is to misuse your imagination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

"That's from post 23. Anyone else find that to be a bit strange?"

Yep,...especially the following part where it apparently made the woman hot. Since it was reading like some kind of bizarre Christian penthouse letter, I was trying to ignore it.


103 posted on 06/08/2005 11:20:50 AM PDT by Chiapet (Cthulhu for President: Why vote for a lesser evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: myrabach
"Since verbs are action words, I'd say orgasm is positively a verb..."

What about the word action itself?

104 posted on 06/08/2005 11:59:36 AM PDT by OldEagle (We might be in the end times, but it looks like we are finally moving in the RIGHT direction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: WhyisaTexasgirlinPA
"It is if you do it right............"

You can do it wrong???

105 posted on 06/08/2005 12:02:12 PM PDT by OldEagle (We might be in the end times, but it looks like we are finally moving in the RIGHT direction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Try not to be sarcasmic,
About a girl who wasn't orgasmic,
She tried and she tried,
To her boyfriends she lied,
Then it happened, and it was totally cosmic.
106 posted on 06/08/2005 12:22:01 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

What I would like to know is what chemicals are released during orgasm? The ones that cause instant relaxation and almost instantaneous sleep? Because if you could sell those, you'd make a fortune.


107 posted on 06/08/2005 12:24:27 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldEagle

I have very intense sneezes and also sneeze multiple times. I think your friend is right. ;^)


108 posted on 06/08/2005 12:26:28 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash

Your explanation is too complicated.

The simple explanation is that women who have orgasms will enjoy sex more than ones who don't. The more you enjoy sex, the more sex you have, and the more sex you have, the more you reproduce.

Elementary, my dear Watson.

I mean, would men want sex as much as they do now if they couldn't have orgasms? I think not . . . .


109 posted on 06/08/2005 12:31:03 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: OldEagle

Good point...... I was referring to the trip, not the destination......;^)


110 posted on 06/08/2005 12:36:57 PM PDT by WhyisaTexasgirlinPA (Prayers for healing and relief from pain for Cowboy...........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
My ex-wife, she wasn't too purty.
But she shore could roll her eyes flirty.
Her thighs she could spasm
To fake an orgasm
And the next thing I know she's run off with the water meter reader.
111 posted on 06/08/2005 1:15:21 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: tx_eggman

Smart woman!


112 posted on 06/08/2005 1:18:39 PM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Your explanation is too complicated.

The simple explanation is that women who have orgasms will enjoy sex more than ones who don't. The more you enjoy sex, the more sex you have, and the more sex you have, the more you reproduce.

Except that if this purely adaptive explanation were true, then there would be greater evidence of it being selected for. The study shows only a 60% genetic component to female orgasm. If it were as straight forward as you suggest, then I would expect that number to be in the high 90%s.

The biggest mistake in the purely adaptive explanation is that for human females, lasting reproductive success does not come with having the most sex, but with the quality of the mate with whom you choose to reproduce. Because of the huge investment in child rearing among humans, the females' reproductive strategy isn't advanced by having more sex, because biologically, females are quite limited in the sheer number of children they can have during their lifetime. So females cannot appreciably increase their reproductive success by increasing the amount of sex they have. (Assuming that they are not starting from "zero", of course.) Males, by contrast, have no such biological constraint. A single high-status man fathering hundreds of children in a single year is easy to contemplate. It would be impossible for a woman to come anywhere near even 5% of that number.

A woman's reproductive strategy is maximized by being able to attract and choose to mate with high-status males and to find males with the ability to help raise children. The net result is that following this strategy she will have more offspring survive to maturity; her sons will have a genetically better opportunity to be high-status males themselves (with the opportunity for high reproductive success) and her daughters will have a genetically better chance of being able to identify and attract high-status males herself.

I mean, would men want sex as much as they do now if they couldn't have orgasms? I think not . . . .

Because this goes to the male reproductive strategy. My "explanation" acknowledges that the male orgasm is adaptive; that is, that it exists because it was selected for by evolution. Female reproductive strategies and male reproductive strategies differ significantly.

The "better sex = more sex = more reproduction" paradigm is the basis for the selective pressure in males but, of course, doesn't take into account social groupings, the differential rates of offspring survival, etc., and the effects these have on reproductive success. The female reproductive picture is different.

113 posted on 06/08/2005 1:22:43 PM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Hap; Xenalyte
You came twice last year like the Sears catalog,
Cause your last boy friend made love like Boss Hog! - Bloodhound Gang
114 posted on 06/08/2005 1:34:46 PM PDT by Bacon Man (Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

I dream of Jeanie.....


115 posted on 06/08/2005 1:39:45 PM PDT by b4its2late (Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
When orgasm rhymes just won't flow,
You can switch to using the Big O,
It's a sneaky tactic,
But just as climactic,
And it lets us go on with the show.
116 posted on 06/08/2005 4:19:18 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood; gobucks
...this article, and research, has one motive: promoting EVOLUTION, using sex as bait.

A modern use of idolatry, Pavlovian behavioral conditioning, conditioned responses...

I'll bet both you men were indignant when you first learned that doctors give painkillers to women during childbirth.
117 posted on 06/08/2005 4:30:40 PM PDT by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING: SQL Queries for Mere Mortals by Hernandez & Viescas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jennyp; PatrickHenry
Hey, the only important question here, is is the orgsm gene being selected for or against right now? The rest of it is fluff. Anyone remember "Flo's sex life" from J. Goodall's first chimp book? I think pheromones are the only important thing here.
118 posted on 06/08/2005 4:54:48 PM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash

"The" female reproductive strategy? Like there's only one? Which mysteriously is just like 20th century American traditional female reproductive strategy? "Marry a high status male, don't waste your sexual prime on that hot guy just because he's cute."

One word - bonobos (a subspecies of chimpanzee). One of the few species that we know has sex just for fun.

Female bonobos don't go looking for "high status males" to reproduce with. They have sex with lots of males, all of which give them presents and help raise the babies. Bonobos don't worry about which guy has the coolest car and which one is going to buy them the biggest dishwasher and which one is going to help put the kids through college.

Back when human beings evolved, they didn't worry about cars and dishwashers and college tuition, either.

Imagine if human females liked to have sex with a lot of males (no!), and nobody knew for sure who the father was (double no!). She'd probably have the most sex with the hottest guys, but "marry" the guy who would make the best husband and/or father.

Best of all possible worlds, no?

Meanwhile, the guy who is worried that he's going to be stuck raising someone else's kid would rather marry a lady who hates sex, because she's more likely to stay "pure." That's why a lot of cultures cut off women's clitorises or sew their vaginas shut or lock them in harems. Unrestrained female sexuality is dangerous to the guy whose only lure for women is dishwashers and cars and college tuition -- in other words, material goodies, or what you call "high status."

So, the ability to have an orgasm gets the hot ladies into bed at an earlier age, and keeps them looking for hot sex their whole lives.

Maybe they can't have several hundred kids, but neither can the bald-headed pot-bellied dork males, and neither can the non-orgasmic females. So just one or two more children over a few million years means they're reproducing sooner, more, and later than the non-orgasmic females.

Case closed.


119 posted on 06/08/2005 6:38:37 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
I'll bet both you men were indignant when you first learned that doctors give painkillers to women during childbirth.

How much would you wager and could you afford to pay off, or would you welch...

120 posted on 06/08/2005 6:38:52 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
I'll bet both you men were indignant when you first learned that doctors give painkillers to women during childbirth.

Oh, and since you brought up pain meds during delivery...

I know a woman who has had 6 children all without any. She actually liked being pregnant and said it was a constant state of arousal and orgasms were better then.

She also breast fed all of them. They are the healthiest and smartest kids you would ever meet and she says it is because she breast fed them and didn't use drugs...

Not all women in the world deliver babies like pampered American princesses.

So, if you think for one second by your comment you can exhibit an air of superiority because of estrogen...

121 posted on 06/08/2005 6:54:34 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Anyone else find that to be a bit strange?

Strange? Why, I find it downright kinky!

122 posted on 06/08/2005 8:41:06 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
I would like to know is what chemicals are released during orgasm

A compound made from Unobtainium.....

123 posted on 06/08/2005 8:49:55 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
Gene Rayburn

"Miss, please push the call button, don't yank my BLANK."

I love Match Game reruns. Long live Game Show Network!

124 posted on 06/08/2005 9:13:40 PM PDT by MikeD (What if the family turned to Jesus/Stopped asking Oprah what to do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: OldEagle
My friend ay the University of New Jersey, who studies such things claims that the intensity of a person's orgasms is related to the way a person sneezes. As we all know a sneeze can vary from an imperceptable grunt to a an uncontrollable AH CA CHOOO!!

Hmm, my wife always sneezes loudly in groups of three...

125 posted on 06/08/2005 9:18:12 PM PDT by MikeD (What if the family turned to Jesus/Stopped asking Oprah what to do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
So, if you think for one second by your comment you can exhibit an air of superiority because of estrogen...

I was also thinking of your post 72:

To be serious about this article, it is not mentioned that a man can have an ejaculation not involving an orgasm, so IMHO this article is not very scientific at all.

It is a fixation on sex, an idolatry, a fertility cult that has nothing to do with being fertile...

Millions of women are happy today that they're making some progress in figuring out why it's so hard for us to reach orgasm, and you seem resentful or threatened by it. I just think that's rather strange.
126 posted on 06/08/2005 11:29:32 PM PDT by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING: SQL Queries for Mere Mortals by Hernandez & Viescas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: TheBigB

ping


127 posted on 06/09/2005 12:10:19 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (www.lp.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Millions of women are happy today that they're making some progress in figuring out why it's so hard for us to reach orgasm,...

Sorry, I can't marry all of them...

128 posted on 06/09/2005 2:37:37 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: MikeD

Do you agree that his observation is accurate?


129 posted on 06/09/2005 5:27:22 AM PDT by OldEagle (We might be in the end times, but it looks like we are finally moving in the RIGHT direction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
See, here I thought you wanted to have a discussion about science rather than this being a forum for your baby-boomer burnout feminist bullshit. "The" female reproductive strategy? Yes, open your eyes and take the "womyn's studies" blinders off and you will see that women throughout human history have, until technology changed the equation in the recent past, pursued the best possible mates they could. And that meant, for females, pursuing high-status males. (Status including both physical attributes and the ability to provide resources, which in pre-industrial societies were intimately linked.)

The "traditional" strategy you decry wasn't there because of some fantasy "misogynistic" oppression in history concocted by the female grievance industry, but was a rational and successful reproductive strategy based on the technological and social environments of the times.

One word - bonobos Okay, but we aren't bonobos, nitwit. The manner that they integrate sex into their lives developed as a result of their social structure, and is used for everything from greetings to conflict resolution. So unless you are saying that when you are introduced to a client, you have sex with him as a way of saying "hello", or have a little girl-on-girl action with your secretary when you have a fight, the fact that bonobos live in a promiscuous society is totally irrelevant to the issue of reproductive strategies of human females, because they exist in a completely different society.

Imagine if human females liked to have sex with a lot of males (no!), and nobody knew for sure who the father was (double no!). She'd probably have the most sex with the hottest guys, but "marry" the guy who would make the best husband and/or father.

Yeah, except what would the motive be for this man to "marry" the promiscuous woman? None. Why would this man limit his reproductive opportunities by raising someone else's child when he could just have sex with her and "marry" a female with whom he was sure was bearing his children. If he were a "good husband and/or father," that would make his genes desirable, so he could have his wife at home and the "loose" girl in the city. Best of both worlds, no?

So, the ability to have an orgasm gets the hot ladies into bed at an earlier age, and keeps them looking for hot sex their whole lives.

Except that these "hot" ladies will be a hell of a lot less "hot" when they are dragging around another man's child and fighting to feed the both of them without help. So they could not pair bond with high-status males because the high-status males wouldn't want them. ("High status" doesn't mean cars and tuition, it mean the ability to command the resources in the society--something requiring physical attributes as well as mental attributes. In pre-technological societies, it meant access to food resources and reproductive opportunities, often based on mastering the hierarchy in the group.) The males would have sex with them as a reproductive opportunity, but they wouldn't aid the females in raising offspring because they could not tell if they were theirs, so their time would be better spent, from a reproductive standpoint, either trying to impregnate other women, or aiding a woman to raise a child which he knew was his own.

As a result, the females would have to raise her children on their own, with fewer resources. This would lead to increased mortality and a decrease in the propagation of the female's genes.

Unrestrained female sexuality is dangerous to the guy whose only lure for women is dishwashers and cars and college tuition -- in other words, material goodies, or what you call "high status."

"Dangerous" Oh, Christ, not this shit again. There's that feminist ideological bullshit oozing out... Unrestrained female sexuality isn't "dangerous," to males, you idiot. Unrestrained female sexuality is desirable for males. Females who are willing to have sex often and with many different males are highly valued by males. The males have sex with them and then leave. They won't "marry" them, of course. The male would rather have sex with them and pair bond with a woman whose children he knows is his own.

Unrestrained female sexuality is dangerous in pre-technological societies, but to females. It limits their opportunity to pair bond with a male and forces her to do twice the work in raising her children. This makes her more susceptible to illness and "wear and tear" and makes her less physically attractive, reducing further her chances of forming a successful pair bond.

Maybe they can't have several hundred kids, but neither can the bald-headed pot-bellied dork males, and neither can the non-orgasmic females.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Have you lived under a rock your whole life? Ever hear of the expression "trophy wife"? There are limitless examples in history and present of physically less-attractive but high-status males reproducing with physically superior females. Donald Trump is their friggin' poster boy. I mean, how many fifty-nine-year-olds with bad comb-overs do you know that beds a string of young actresses and Eastern European supermodels?

He is nothing more than the "bald-headed pot-bellied dork male" transforming his status into reproductive opportunities with females which, absent his status, he would have no chance of getting. [This also presents the female with the opportunity to adopt a cheating strategy with otherwise low-status, but physically superior males. (Which we still see as the bored housewife of rich corporate executive bumping uglies with Carlos, the pool boy.) But that's for another post.]

As for non-orgasmic women, there is no physical need for a woman to have an orgasm in order to reproduce. As I said in my initial post, I think the increased fertilization rate that female orgasm can produce is probably driving it as a secondary adaptation. But as an physical matter, it is unnecessary.

So just one or two more children over a few million years means they're reproducing sooner, more, and later than the non-orgasmic females.

No, it means they are reproducing earlier, but less successfully, by having fewer children live to reproductive age, as a result of doing so with fewer resources.

130 posted on 06/09/2005 5:56:23 AM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash

Good thing you put the insult in the first sentence, so I won't waste my time reading any of the rest of it.


131 posted on 06/09/2005 7:17:29 AM PDT by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Good thing you put the insult in the first sentence, so I won't waste my time reading any of the rest of it.

Suit yourself. Your refusal to learn is up to you. Every village needs its idiot.

132 posted on 06/09/2005 7:28:20 AM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I thought it was a truly bizarre post, myself, but this topic seems to trigger, er, stimulate, no, um provoke, bizarre behavior in men.

Because, as Sally showed Harry, most men have to take women's words for what they're feeling and many women think they have good reasons to lie. And thus, many men are in the truly bizarre position of thinking, that, being male, THEY know best about everything, including what makes their female partner happiest, but even they know this could not possibly be true.

Cognitive dissonance is very disorienting. Makes people do very weird things.


133 posted on 06/09/2005 7:28:45 AM PDT by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash

LOL! It was the "bald-headed, pot-bellied dork" comment that ticked you off, right? Don't worry, I can't see you through the computer screen.


134 posted on 06/09/2005 7:31:53 AM PDT by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
It was the "bald-headed, pot-bellied dork" comment that ticked you off, right? Don't worry, I can't see you through the computer screen.

Ha! No, it was your pathetic "just because a woman is promiscuous doesn't mean she's a slut" tone. Anyone who's grown up listing to old baby-boomer women justify their past misbehavior using feminist claptrap, simply because reality simply doesn't fit their libertine ideology, gets to know the tone.

135 posted on 06/09/2005 7:56:20 AM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash

I wasn't talking about you or me, nor anybody you went to college with.

I was talking about survival strategies evolved over billions of years by billions of semi-human and human animals, each seeking their own reproductive niche.

The fact that you think that there is ONE strategy that works for every female indicates that you are ignorant, and the fact that you're nasty about it indicates that you're irredeemably ignorant.

Have a nice day.


136 posted on 06/09/2005 8:26:04 AM PDT by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
this topic seems to trigger, er, stimulate, no, um provoke, bizarre behavior in men.

Don't get me in the middle of this one. I just post the stuff.

137 posted on 06/09/2005 8:28:21 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
I was talking about survival strategies evolved over billions of years by billions of semi-human and human animals, each seeking their own reproductive niche.

No, you weren't. You talked about human women and bonobos. You never mentioned "semi-human animals" (whatever they are). As for human "reproductive niches," there is no evidence anywhere of any wide-spread successful human female reproductive strategy which entails female promiscuity. None.

There IS a bunch of feminist bullshit that said that women are naturally as promiscuous as men, but that mean old misogyny and male hierarchical dominance forced them to be unnaturally hesitant about expressing their "true sexuality." Why is this bullshit? Because prior to modern technology and the welfare state, the societal structure which is natural for humans had no way to make a "promiscuous female" reproductive strategy successful given the demands of human child-rearing, for all the reasons I've previously discussed.

Moreover, even though this strategy has been modified to meet differing circumstances (for example in permitting the growth of polygamous cultures), as a general matter, the strategy followed by most human woman has been to secure as good a mate as you can to aid in raising your offspring, and to remain faithful except in very limited circumstances. It thrives because it is successful, given human biology and social structures.

The fact that you think that there is ONE strategy that works for every female indicates that you are ignorant, and the fact that you're nasty about it indicates that you're irredeemably ignorant.

That a natural, successful, female reproductive strategy for humans exists is a fact, whether you want to believe it or not. Further, I never said that every female follows this pattern. Obviously they do not, and no reasonable person could have read that into what I wrote.

The fact that I am "nasty," as you put it, does not show ignorance, but shows that I am impatient with those who put political ideology ahead of fact and logic.

138 posted on 06/09/2005 9:26:42 AM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
there is no evidence anywhere of any wide-spread successful human female reproductive strategy which entails female promiscuity

Hoo boy. You really are irredeemably ignorant. I could suggest you do a little research (google female promiscuity evolution) before you embarrass yourself like this in public anymore, but I fear it's hopeless.

You'll just start ranting about feminists and loose womyn and other evil females in your mental parade of horribles. ;^D

139 posted on 06/09/2005 9:41:39 AM PDT by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash

I gotta run but will give this a try just for laughs -- now, think a minute.

Female monogamy is in the best interests of males. Men have no way of knowing who is the actual father of a woman's child, at least not until DNA testing. Rather than waste their resources on another male's child, males have developed a number of strategies, all of which are designed to ensure that the female doesn't fool him into raising another man's child.

Now, be logical. Why would it be in a female's best interest to adopt the male's strategy? What do females have to gain by limiting sexual congress to only one male?

Reassuring the male ego is the only possible answer, and she can do that about as well by fooling him.

That's why so-called monogamous animals, whether they be humans or geese, have a 10% to 50% rate of having offspring by other than their so-called monogamous mate.

You can blame feminists for this, if it makes you feel better, but facts are facts.

If you're worried, DNA testing is pretty inexpensive these days. ;^)


140 posted on 06/09/2005 9:50:22 AM PDT by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Now, be logical. Why would it be in a female's best interest to adopt the male's strategy? What do females have to gain by limiting sexual congress to only one male?

Lemme try to suggest a scenario. This one isn't human, so it's not personal. I'm thinking of the lovable walrus, who keeps a harem of females. With a species like that, where the female isn't always in season, the male wants -- for whatever reasons -- to assure that he's the one who impregnates her during those rare times when she's fertile. If the male is protecting his females, he's got an investment in them. And presumably they benefit from his benevolent (but authoritarian) devotion. So it wouldn't be in a female's interest to stray. Besides, if she's being kept by the dominant male, she wants his offspring, not some inferior's spawn. Make sense? It seems to work for them. Maybe not. It's up to you.

141 posted on 06/09/2005 10:43:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: OldEagle

Only if done correctly!


142 posted on 06/09/2005 10:47:07 AM PDT by MortMan (Mostly Harmless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I don't know anything about walrus reproduction, except that a quick google shows that it takes place "off the pack ice, remote from shore; breeding locations are thus largely inaccessible for observation." So, the only way to know whether female walruses (walri?) are actually monogamous would probably be DNA testing.
http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/info-books/walrus/reproduction.htm

I will point out that it's fallacious to assume that because the alpha male is bigger and meaner than the less mature males competing for the cows, that his sperm is, ipso facto, superior. His sperm may be aged, or otherwise inferior to that of younger males who have yet to come into their physical prime.

Sneaking off to reproduce with a younger but not-yet-dominant bull would then make reproductive sense, especially if it means that your offspring "gets the jump" on that of your less-adventurous herd mates.

Or to use human terms, why assume that the king's sperm is better than the prince's sperm? Especially if the king is old.


143 posted on 06/09/2005 11:01:10 AM PDT by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Or, to put it in even more human terms, given the choice between Prince Charles and Prince William, if the only goal is better genes for the offspring, human females would be stupid to prefer Prince Charles, even though he has higher social status today than Prince William.

Prince William is much stronger and better looking, seems to be more intelligent, fewer psychological quirks, and he will someday probably be king, while Prince Charles is a mess and will never be king.


144 posted on 06/09/2005 11:07:30 AM PDT by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Oh yeah? Well, I'm out, so argue with this guy:


145 posted on 06/09/2005 12:05:37 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

It's not an argument, really, it's an explanation.

Another example -- stop any random female in a shopping mall -- would she rather reproduce with George W. Bush, the most powerful man in the world, or her favorite movie star? My guess is movie star (or rock star or sports star.)

Women and men just have different strategies. Which makes sense, given that on some level, we're competing, not just against others of our own sex, but even against each other.


146 posted on 06/09/2005 12:16:51 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Please. Point me to this society where human females practice promescuity as a reproductive strategy, and I'll form a travel company and make a mint sending men to visit all these women having indiscriminate sex.

You'll just start ranting about feminists and loose womyn and other evil females in your mental parade of horribles.

There's your indoctrination coming through again. Only in the fevered delusions of the feministas are "loose" women thought by men to be "evil." How many times do I have to tell you, men love loose women. We just don't marry them.

147 posted on 06/09/2005 12:51:41 PM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Okay, how about I tell you why you're an idiot...

"Promiscuous" and "monogamous" are not opposites. Only a freaking idiot would suggest that humans or women are monogamous. That's not true, and I never argued this point. Humans are more intermediate; not as "pure" as, say, gorillas; not as "slutty" as chimpanzees.

My point in all of this is to show why women's reproductive strategy does not encompass promiscuity. (That is to say, they do not have sex indiscriminately, like the bonobos you hyped.) Of course I not saying female reproductive strategy is to be exclusively monogamous. On at least two occasions I mentioned that cheating is actually part of the female's reproductive strategy.

But even when females mate outside the pair bond, they are not being promiscuous like bonobos; they are choosy. It is sexual selection at work. It only makes sense, from a reproductive-fitness standpoint, if she cheated with someone who is or appears to be more fit than her current mate and not just some slob off the street.

But, as I also said, it would be done in very limited circumstances, such as when there is the opportunity to mate with a male who is or appears to be a genetically high-value male, where she can not "permanently" bond with this male, and that she can do so without jeopardizing her current pair bond.

The benefit which a cheating female gets is genetic. But she would be worse off if, in doing so, she losses the aid of the male who she must count on to help raise this child that is not genetically his.

So both female and male reproductive strategies work against and in light of the other. Just as pure monogamy doesn't advance the female's strategy, there has to be a base level of fidelity, otherwise there would be no incentive for males to stick around, and females would loose the benefit of having males around to help raise children.

On the other side, there is a benefit to be gained by the female by cheating with a higher quality male, if she can retain the pair bond, so she won't lose the advantage that gives her.

Basically, once the interactions work out, you get a situation where there is a basic degree of monogamy with opportunistic infidelity occurring. But you don't come anywhere near the promiscuous situation like with the bonobos you brought up.

148 posted on 06/09/2005 12:51:45 PM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash

Your perspicacity is only exceeded by your charm.

Have a nice day.


149 posted on 06/09/2005 1:05:06 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott
1. I think you have been deceived.

2. Statistics show that 87% of women do not have an orgasm with intercourse. (I read that statistic just this week...don't know where. I read too much online.) IMO, if you don't know how to drive the vehicle you cannot teach someone else to do so...

150 posted on 06/09/2005 1:11:55 PM PDT by I'm ALL Right!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-166 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson