Why did the female orgasm evolve? Experiment supports theory

#1
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/...092519.php
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/femal...-1.5250834

EXCERPTS: A study suggests a possible evolutionary origin of female orgasm. Female orgasm is a complex neuroendocrine process that is unlikely to have evolved by chance but is unnecessary for successful reproduction. Many hypotheses for the evolutionary origin of female orgasm have been proposed, but few have empirical support.

Günter P. Wagner, Mihaela Pavlicev, and colleagues conducted an experimental test of one such hypothesis, the ovulatory homolog model (OHM), which proposes that the physiological mechanisms underlying female orgasm originally developed for inducing ovulation during copulation. Such copulation-induced ovulation (CIO) occurs in various mammals, such as rabbits, cats, ferrets, and camels, but not in humans or great apes.

[...] Some years ago, Mihaela Pavlicev, then a researcher at the Boston Children's Hospital, was cataloguing information about the ovarian cycle in different mammals when she stumbled on a pattern — in animals where ovulation is induced by mating, the hormones involved are the same ones released during the human orgasm. Further research showed that animals where ovulation is induced by mating had a different anatomy — their clitoris was inside the "copulatory canal" as opposed to outside, in the case of humans.

And the genetic relationships between the animals were consistent with the idea that both kinds of mammals shared a common evolutionary ancestor whose ovulation was triggered by mating. Pavlicev hypothesized that what humans experience as female orgasm originally evolved to trigger ovulation, and it's a "leftover" trait that no longer has the same purpose. "It's a good suggestion, a good hypothesis with a lot of support, but we really wanted to test it somehow," said Pavlicev, now a professor at the University of Vienna.

[...] To test the OHM, the authors treated female rabbits daily with fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor that inhibits orgasm, for 2 weeks before copulation. One day after copulation, the authors measured the number of ovulations, which was 30% lower in fluoxetine-treated rabbits than in control rabbits. In a second experiment, the authors induced ovulation by injection of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) following fluoxetine treatment. Fluoxetine treatment did not significantly affect hCG-induced ovulation. According to the authors, the results support the hypothesis that CIO in rabbits is homologous to female orgasm in humans, suggesting that these processes share a common evolutionary origin.
Reply
#2
See, I always knew it only happened by accident.

*chuckle*
Reply
#3
(Oct 7, 2019 12:20 AM)Ben the Donkey Wrote: See, I always knew it only happened by accident.

*chuckle*


The study suggests that the female orgasm is not accidental or related to the male. It’s suggesting that it was an adaptive mechanism for inducing ovulation. They’re suggesting that with the evolution of spontaneous ovulation vs induced, our orgasms may now serve as a secondary role, which might explain its maintenance, but not its origin.

You could be talking about personal experiences, though.  Wink

*chuckle*
Reply
#4
There is also a theory that states contractions caused by orgasm help to draw sperm deeper into the reproductive tract and thus increase the chances of conception. Not sure how that works (or why it matters) if either the male or female are sterile, or if either are enjoying other forms of sex, that don't involve intercourse.
Reply
#5
(Oct 8, 2019 10:01 PM)Leigha Wrote: There is also a theory that states contractions caused by orgasm help to draw sperm deeper into the reproductive tract and thus increase the chances of conception. Not sure how that works (or why it matters) if either the male or female are sterile, or if either are enjoying other forms of sex, that don't involve intercourse.

If the theory held that there are male sperm, that are faster but short lived, and female sperm, that are slower but hardier, pairing female orgasm with more male offspring could be nature's way to incentivize paternal investment.
Reply
#6
(Oct 8, 2019 10:38 PM)Syne Wrote:
(Oct 8, 2019 10:01 PM)Leigha Wrote: There is also a theory that states contractions caused by orgasm help to draw sperm deeper into the reproductive tract and thus increase the chances of conception. Not sure how that works (or why it matters) if either the male or female are sterile, or if either are enjoying other forms of sex, that don't involve intercourse.

If the theory held that there are male sperm, that are faster but short lived, and female sperm, that are slower but hardier, pairing female orgasm with more male offspring could be nature's way to incentivize paternal investment.
Could be. Orgasms trigger pair bonding whether we like it or not, more so in women. This is why I don’t think one night stands are a good idea, they can create a false sense of bonding and love that hasn’t been established.
Reply
#7
(Oct 8, 2019 10:43 PM)Leigha Wrote:
(Oct 8, 2019 10:38 PM)Syne Wrote: If the theory held that there are male sperm, that are faster but short lived, and female sperm, that are slower but hardier, pairing female orgasm with more male offspring could be nature's way to incentivize paternal investment.
Could be. Orgasms trigger pair bonding whether we like it or not, more so in women. This is why I don’t think one night stands are a good idea, they can create a false sense of bonding and love that hasn’t been established.
I've seen a study that said sex activates the same pair bonding part of the brain in men. But there's less social incentive for men to justify a one night stand by trying to make it a relationship.
Reply
#8
(Oct 8, 2019 10:53 PM)lol Syne Wrote:
(Oct 8, 2019 10:43 PM)Leigha Wrote:
(Oct 8, 2019 10:38 PM)Syne Wrote: If the theory held that there are male sperm, that are faster but short lived, and female sperm, that are slower but hardier, pairing female orgasm with more male offspring could be nature's way to incentivize paternal investment.
Could be. Orgasms trigger pair bonding whether we like it or not, more so in women. This is why I don’t think one night stands are a good idea, they can create a false sense of bonding and love that hasn’t been established.
I've seen a study that said sex activates the same pair bonding part of the brain in men. But there's less social incentive for men to justify a one night stand by trying to make it a relationship.
Ah, that’s interesting. Reminds me of that famous saying “women have sex in hopes of finding love, men offer love in hopes of getting sex.” I might be a bit off, but something like that. Lol
Reply
#9
Nature seems to have arranged it so women have sex because they enjoy it - babies are (may be) an unintended consequence.
Possible unintended family size limitation once the first child is old enough to dial 911 and report that daddy is killing mommy.
Reply
#10
(Oct 9, 2019 10:30 PM)confused2 Wrote: Nature seems to have arranged it so women have sex because they enjoy it - babies are (may be) an unintended consequence.
Possible unintended family size limitation once the first child is old enough to dial 911 and report that daddy is killing mommy.

Yep. There’s a maternal instinct once you have a child, but evolution ensures that we want sex, not babies.

I don’t think that women are judging what kind of provider you’d be, though. They’re just trying to figure out if they want to sleep with you or not, and most of the time that is just based on whether or not they are attracted to you and feel comfortable with you. Just think of how many questions we have to ask ourselves. The first and foremost, is he going to harm me?

I was thinking about that video that Syne posted. Even as a female, I can’t see myself approaching someone that I don’t know to ask her if she wanted to be friends, much less to sleep with me. You’d have to be on your toes, that's for sure, because stupidity is a huge turn off. Women want someone with equal or higher intelligence. Oh, sure, men say they do but only in theory. Most men feel threatened.

My friends and I were taking selfies when we were out hiking a few weeks ago. We were messing around with that snapchat filter that turns you into a man. It’s really weird and it does make you look like a guy. We were cracking up. All of us looked like our sons but I was the only one that everyone said that they would…well, you know.  Big Grin

I’d be a really hot guy. A little short for a man, perhaps, but I’d know exactly what to say and not to say.

BTW, speaking of dumb guys, I notice that a new one popped up at Sciforums. Foghorn. Sound familiar? That was one of Sapo’s old socks back in the day. He always shows up around the same time as that Truck Captain Stumpy, which might be one of his socks or maybe his son. I thought he said that he was dying. Must have bounced back, eh? Weird.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Fragile DNA Enables New Adaptations to Evolve Quickly C C 2 334 Feb 7, 2019 03:27 AM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)