"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.
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.