The Myth of the Female Orgasm

OK, it's not really a myth. It's just been mythologized quite a bit. Why all the concern and studies over the last 200 years? Why is it even a question - that needs answering?

Ever watch any porn? I've watched quite a bit the last 5 years, all freely available now on the I-net, and I have noticed the "money shot" occurs in basically 100% of all man-woman sex depictions. The money shot is the man's (or men's) orgasm. OTOH, it takes a special search to find women's orgasms - even depicted. Who knows if they are real when filmed?

OK - that's just porn - and I've read a fascinating article at Salon (by a woman) who indeed bemoans just how terrible so much of modern porn is as it depicts men mistreating women for their own pleasure. And perhaps driven by the original four modern porn czars - Hefner (Playboy), Guccione (Penthouse), Flynt (Hustler), and Goldstein (Screw) - and their own personal problems with women but also their own motivations: basically to get rich off of sexual exploitation of women. Gee, just like pimps all down thru history.

What is the biological and evolutionary rationale for orgasms? For reproduction and survival of the species the man's orgasm (as merely defined by ejaculation of sperm containing semen) is a requirement. Effective deposition of the semen in a vagina requires tumescence - and not so much for added length (some 2 inch small dickers have impregnated women, actually) - but merely hard enough for penetration. Hard to stick a wet noodle in ANY kind of hole.

A woman's orgasm is NOT a requirement though - for species survival. Many women have gotten pregnant sans orgasm. Happens all the time and sometimes (unfortunately) even via extremely uncomfortable forced/rape situations.

But now we start entering the vagaries of "secondary" evolutionary characteristics. The primary purpose of sex is reproduction, the secondary purpose is bonding between a man and pregnant woman so that she has the support and care to sustain her and her baby through birth and basically the next 7 or 8 years - before a child in a hunter-gatherer tribal situation can possibly survive on his/her own.

Per the best and most current fossil evidence Homo sapiens has been around about 200,000 years, and for about 190,000 of those years most humans have been hunter-gatherers, not even farmers or herders. It is also important to understand that even into the 17th century AD, most humans did not live past 45 years old - and most women didn't even make 40. Also, given lifespans and mortality, women who DID reach post puberty - basically 14-15 year olds - needed to start having babies right away and had to have 10 during their own lifespans, of which at least 5 reached puberty themselves, merely to maintain a STABLE (ZPG) population. Infant and childhood deaths were always high because food was always so often scarce in that "feast or famine" world. And hunger hurts disease resistance and also pregnant and nursing women especially hard. No wonder infant mortality and even death in childbirth was so high throughout most of human history.

We all now live in a VERY atypical age - and I guess a lot of modern psychiatrists don't really know these historical basics. Freud certainly did not when he developed his own theories. We also live in an age where basically "individualism" is practically worshipped, and the "pursuit of happiness" is viewed as a God-given right. This is kind of laughable given actual historical basic facts. What right to happiness or even life does a starving mother and her infant nursing baby have?

Humans have evolved to be highly sexual beings - but NOT for "personal happiness", but by blind Nature's commandments to "be fruitful and multiply." The man's imperative is to impregnate women, but more importantly then stick by one pregnant woman and care for her and her children. This is where "love" and bonding comes into play. The woman's imperative is to get pregnant and have babies, over and over again. And she is pretty much absolutely dependent on A man for her primary support doing all this (during those 190,000 years but also just perhaps the millions of years of Homo sapiens ancestor species, heidelbergensis, erectus, habilis). This has all been arrived at naturally through social evolution. Every stone-age tribe ever discovered and studied has man-woman marriage as a central concept. Only occasionally has a "head man" in these tribes had more than one wife, as the only man who could basically "afford" this and support multiple women and children.

One of the greatest practical jokes of Nature is the mere fact "a woman doesn't reach her peak sexuality until her 30's." This is beyond meaninglessness in evolutionary terms - since most women throughout history never hardly made it alive into their 30's, anyway.

But in a sense we all live in an "insane" time just evolutionarily. The great meme in the whole modern world is "there are too many humans alive!" and with modern birth control, including safe and easy abortions, ever fewer women have even 2 children, and many are choosing none. No wonder women are just SO unhappy nowadays and often confused about what they really want and what makes them "happy." They are taught to act counter to their deepest evolutionary desires - not just to have sex, but actually have babies.

Some choose "big dicks and great orgasms" as their penultimate goal. Way too many women (and now men) choose drugs and other merely escapist strategies. A few choose to "out man men" in competitive economic and political endeavors. But it is really difficult to find a replacement for deep seated evolutionary imperatives.

There is at least anecdotal evidence and observation of both a "4 year" and "7 year" itch for women who stray from their marriages. The 4 year straying occurs after a baby is born but the woman doesn't get pregnant again. The fact this often occurs because she "rationally" decides on her own she doesn't want to, means little to her subconscious impulses to be pregnant again, after the normal 2 year nursing period ends. The 7 year (or 8) again is the point her youngest child has reached that age and evolutionarily can minimally survive on their own. Her body (if not her mind) is asking (demanding) why ain't I pregnant again??? Must be my current man's fault and time to start looking for another one...

Of course, all humans ARE individuals and with many mental and body differences (hormone and brain chemistry balances/imbalances) and "free will" always does apply - to a point.

Also very important are those "Lucifer Principles" as articulated by Howard Bloom in his classic study and actually gaining impact amongst broader scientists - like the current view of "depression" evolutionarily:

From the standpoint of evolutionary theory, major depression is hypothesized, in some instances, to increase an individual's reproductive fitness. Evolutionary approaches to depression and evolutionary psychology posit specific mechanisms by which depression may have been genetically incorporated into the human gene pool, accounting for the high heritability and prevalence of depression by proposing that certain components of depression are adaptations,[96] such as the behaviors relating to attachment and social rank.[97] Current behaviors can be explained as adaptations to regulate relationships or resources, although the result may be maladaptive in modern environments.[98]

From another viewpoint, a counseling therapist may see depression not as a biochemical illness or disorder but as "a species-wide evolved suite of emotional programs that are mostly activated by a perception, almost always over-negative, of a major decline in personal usefulness, that can sometimes be linked to guilt, shame or perceived rejection".[99] This suite may have manifested in aging hunters in humans' foraging past, who were marginalized by their declining skills, and may continue to appear inalienated members of today's society. The feelings of uselessness generated by such marginalization could in theory prompt support from friends and kin. In addition, in a manner analogous to that in which physical pain has evolved to hinder actions that may cause further injury, "psychic misery" may have evolved to prevent hasty and maladaptive reactions to distressing situations.

(wikipedia - Major Depressive Disorder article)

Clinical depression affects women more than men - and especially younger women - and one effect of clinical depression is lowering the libido or sexual desire of the sufferers. And yet, overall, in a more natural state - such depression hardly depresses pregnancy and birth rates at all. Again the issue is the actual importance of "women's orgasms."

It really is very complicated and I try to weave some of these insanities - just the irrational age we live in AND the real mental instabilities many women suffer from - in some of my own fiction. Many other (and better) authors seem to do this as well, though they don't specifically spell it out as bluntly.

Like the perceived importance of "big dicks", the perceived importance of "mind blowing orgasms" for both women and men who love them is just blown way out of proportion in both fiction and current real "modern world" life.