"The Female Orgasm Serves No Reproductive Purpose" is a Myth That Just Won't Die
When it comes to mate selection, sexual skills matter.
If you enjoyed this article, please share it with a friend or consider becoming a paid subscriber. Wednesday’s article is always free. Sunday’s article is for paid subscribers only.
Humans complain about dating today, but they wouldn’t survive a day in the bird kingdom. No one would put in that much work.
Take the male bowerbird, who constructs a veritable Versailles of twigs, leaves, and a perplexing array of found objects. We’re talking flowers, fruits, and some tacky bits of plastic. Imagine if men courted women with junk drawer assortments and strategically placed IKEA furniture, all to catch the discerning eye of their lady love.
Meanwhile, over in the wetlands, male baya weavers are crafting a teardrop-shaped luxury condominium. Using fibers, twigs, and leaves, these little avian architects hang their creations like avant-garde chandeliers. The female weaver’s job? House hunting. She inspects each leafy penthouse with the scrutiny of a prospective homebuyer in a tight real estate market. Only the most elaborately constructed nests make the cut.
Then there’s the peacock, who takes a more direct approach — visual bombardment. He unfurls his technicolor tail in an explosion of iridescent blues and greens. It’s the equivalent of holding up a rainbow-colored shark in your dating profile.
Evolutionary biologists have found endless examples of male birds wooing female birds. The inevitable conclusion is always the same — the male who signals the most reproductive pizzaz gets the girl.
Yet, oddly, this logic never seems to extend to men’s skills in the bedroom.
You’ve probably heard the tired platitude: “The female orgasm serves no reproductive purpose.” Blah, blah, blah. Evolutionary biologists would have us believe that women, like birds, simply seek out the prettiest mates with the sturdiest nests. Sexual skills? Completely irrelevant. Or so they say.
But if you view sex as just a means to an end — reproduction — it’s easy to see why this thinking persists. Unlike the male orgasm, the female orgasm isn’t necessary for fertilization. Consequently, many evolutionary biologists chalk it up as a happy accident, like finding a ten-dollar bill in your coat pocket.
Tim Spector of St Thomas’s Hospital in London goes a step further. His research found that women not orgasming is an evolutionary bonus. Apparently, women who orgasm regularly are more likely to choose low-quality mates, while those who don’t orgasm are pickier. In an article for the Guardian, Spector contends;
“Perhaps women who had orgasms too easily weren’t very good selectors.” It paid women to be more fussy and this is one way of doing it. The simple fact is that it takes women on average 12 minutes and men two and a half minutes to reach orgasm.”
Yes, you read that right. According to this sex-shaming claptrap, women’s pleasure is insignificant from an evolutionary standpoint. That’s why it takes women longer to orgasm. So lie back and think of England. And science bros.
First, the time difference he referenced was based on a study that compared how long it takes heterosexual women and men to orgasm during partnered sex only.
Another study found that women climax quicker when flying solo. In other words, women take longer to orgasm only when the penis shows up for the party. To date, I have not seen a single study on orgasm latency in men and women during masturbation. I wonder why.
Second, according to a sounder theory - the “Mr Right” Hypothesis - the female orgasm does have an evolutionary purpose.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Conversations with Carlyn to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.