
On an unrelated note, I just wanted to give a science update similar to the Mad Scientist. Todays NY Times has an article about the female orgasm and it's evolutionary significance. The scientist quoted for the book, Dr. Elisabeth Lloyd claims that the female orgasm is an evolutionary remnant, as vestige of the differentiation of the male from the female. She equates it to the fact that males have nipples which serve no biological purpose. Her biggest support of this is that many sexual encounters do not involve a female orgasm (well, not in my house but - who da man!). This apparently is evidence that women do not need to orgasm to procreate. Kind of a simplistic argument, but one to be studied...I suppose. Some interesting issues related to this that I've thought up are the fact that women generally orgasm before the man (if they do) so there probably isn't a physical component. Women tend to become more orgasmic with age which to me seems counterintuitive to an evolutionary argument. Perhaps, as some scientists in the article suggest, is that the orgasm helps a woman pick a healthy male, which would be genetic selection!
I approve of this message The Man
at 6:54 PM EDT
Updated: Friday, 20 May 2005 7:04 PM EDT