Author
|
Topic: Female orgasm as proof of God (Read 2045 times) |
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.40
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
  
|
 |
Female orgasm as proof of God
« on: 2005-05-30 20:19:27 » |
 |
This is a funny one.
Female Orgasm: Proof Of God
Science can't explain it, evolution can't understand it and men can only lie there in awe
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/05/27/notes052705.DTL
Women have orgasms because they can. Women have orgasms because it's the right thing to do.
Women have orgasms because by and large they refuse to launch monstrous ultraviolent illegal soul-deadening wars over oilsucking phallocentric powermad landwhoring BS powergrabs and therefore they fully deserve all the inexplicable otherworldly cosmically infused clitorally energized pleasures they can get.
Did you catch that keyword? That note of strangeness? It was right there, in the word inexplicable. Because apparently, as far as science is concerned and despite the obvious reasons I assert above, no one really seems to know exactly why women have orgasms at all.
Observe, won't you, a new book by a soft-spoken scientist named Dr. Elisabeth Lloyd, from Indiana U, that basically claims there is no justifiable evolutionary need for the female orgasm whatsoever, that it really serves no known biological purpose and that it's becoming, therefore, increasingly obsolete and redundant and more or less unnecessary.
Note how much fun Dr. Lloyd must be at parties. Or on a date.
After all, the book concludes, the clitoris merely exists to create excitement to promote reproduction, but the female orgasm is merely a weird biological afterthought, a remembrance of things past, a wisp of a hint of something that came long before that maybe only our ape ancestors could fully appreciate and make good use of, mostly for generating a more potent, primitive urge to make little furry ape babies.
But now witness, argues the book, the heartbreaking number of modern non-ape women who have tragically low or nonexistent sex drives but who still feel absolutely compelled to pop out a nice brood of offspring. The female orgasm, clearly, ain't for procreation. It has no effect on the transport of sperm. It doesn't drive maternal desire. So, if the urge to orgasm has no connection with the urge to procreate, why do women get them at all?
This is the great thing about science. It gets all flabbergasted and confounded and scrunchy when confronted with things it doesn't quite understand and that it can't quite figure out and that don't fit into neat categories, especially if said things are astounding explosive events that make women moan and writhe and gasp and grin and feel their deep inborn prelapsarian connection to just about all of eternity, in the space of about 17 seconds.
There is no room in this mode of science for, you know, mystery. There is no room for the deeply funky or the hotly mystical, the moist divine wild card. This is because stiff little science tends to cram all possibility for a given explanation into the great maw of cold beautiful logic and spits out, sadly and tellingly and almost without fail, the cosmic hunks of mystical possibility as if they were indigestible bones.
That scientific view is, of course, one way to look at it. There is, naturally, another.
Let us open up a little, go deep and explore and probe further and say, ahh yes. Because it can also be very easily argued that the female orgasm is, quite simply, the Great Mystical Link, the hot divine thing that connects and communicates and interrelates between heaven and Earth, mind and body, soul and sky, dream state and anal bead, Astroglide and God.
Maybe, in other words, the female orgasm doesn't need a purely biological purpose. Maybe it's about something more. Maybe it has -- dare we say it? -- a spiritual purpose. Vibrational. Transcendental. Gasp! Hide the children.
<snip>
|
|
|
|
|
DJ dAndroid
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 206
Reputation: 7.97
Rate DJ dAndroid
Ballet Mechanique
|
|
Re:Female orgasm as proof of God
« Reply #1 on: 2005-05-30 21:33:01 » |
|
Well you know, I remember reading that science has no real explanation for ear-lobes either. As for "the myth of the female orgasm" just pull the pin on that grenade and be grateful that explosion is there right when you need it. Yes!  imho of course. 
|
Shouldn't robots have the same right as humans to have gender and express their sexuality?
_Clayton Bailey_
http://www.claytonbailey.com/monrobot.htm
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Female orgasm as proof of God
« Reply #2 on: 2005-05-31 02:46:22 » |
|
rhinoceros
Sent: 31 May 2005 02:19
<snip>This is a funny one.
Female Orgasm: Proof Of God
Science can't explain it, evolution can't understand it and men can only
lie there in awe
http://sfgate.com/cgi
bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/05/27/notes052705.DTL</snip>
[Blunderov] Errr... is it just me or is the evolutionary purpose of the
female orgasm perfectly obvious? Human history has been marked by a high
mortality rate of mothers giving birth. Apart from being incredibly
painful it is a very dangerous to the mother mostly due to the large
size of the baby's head.
If I was female, there would have to be a LOT of incentive to have sex.
A big lot. Luckily there is the female orgasm. The fact that women are
capable of multiple orgasms seems only fair.
Best Regards.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.40
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
RE: virus: Female orgasm as proof of God
« Reply #4 on: 2005-05-31 10:46:25 » |
|
Female Orgasm: Proof Of God
Science can't explain it, evolution can't understand it and men can only
lie there in awe
http://sfgate.com/cgi
bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/05/27/notes052705.DTL</snip>
[Blunderov] Errr... is it just me or is the evolutionary purpose of the
female orgasm perfectly obvious? Human history has been marked by a high
mortality rate of mothers giving birth. Apart from being incredibly
painful it is a very dangerous to the mother mostly due to the large
size of the baby's head.
If I was female, there would have to be a LOT of incentive to have sex.
A big lot. Luckily there is the female orgasm. The fact that women are
capable of multiple orgasms seems only fair.
Best Regards.
[rhinoceros]
Heh, I posted that article only for the fun effect. A more serious review appeared in the New York Times, which can be found here (NYTimes now want money for it).
Critic takes on logic of female orgasm
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0516sci-orgasm16-ON.html
Elisabeth Lloyd's view that female orgasm is just a spandrel, same as the male nipples, is not new. It has been advocated by Gould, who used to dismiss evolutionist accounts of female orgasm. Well, Gould did have this tendency to do sanity checks on evolutionary arguments, which was not a bad idea overall. On the issue at hand, many arguments have been made that orgasm is a much more complex neurophysiological phenomenon than nipples and that its psychological effects may well reach far beyond the act of sex.
An interesting discussion can be found in the evol-psych mailing list (you need to log-in first):
http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=64;action=display;threadid=32516
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
RE: virus: Female orgasm as proof of God
« Reply #5 on: 2005-05-31 10:52:44 » |
|
[Blunderov] Errr... is it just me or is the evolutionary purpose of the
female orgasm perfectly obvious? Human history has been marked by a high
mortality rate of mothers giving birth. Apart from being incredibly
painful it is a very dangerous to the mother mostly due to the large
size of the baby's head.
If I was female, there would have to be a LOT of incentive to have sex.
A big lot. Luckily there is the female orgasm. The fact that women are
capable of multiple orgasms seems only fair.
[Lucifer] I don't think that explanation works because you have to imagine females making the connection between the act of sex and the potential for pain nine months in the future, even when they have never had a child. Zach's explanation is probably closer to the truth, that females orgasm as a side effect of the development of the male orgasm. I didn't RTFA (as they say on /.) did it mention if humans are unique in this respect?
|
|
|
|
|
DrSebby
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 456
Reputation: 7.99
Rate DrSebby
...Oh, you smell of lambs!
     
|
|
RE: virus: Female orgasm as proof of God
« Reply #6 on: 2005-06-01 05:25:15 » |
|
...could it be that a significant release of female ejaculate might increase
the likelyhood of impregnation? probably not...but regardless, i think this
is another case of "evolutionary scientists" forgetting that it is NOT just
survival of the fittest, but survival of the sexiest, most popular, most
cowardly at times, etc, etc....
...there are countless examples out there where an animal species develops
certain traits, be they physical or behavior-based, which clearly are NOT in
the best interest of the species genetic longevity...but more directed at
"getting-the-girl/guy" desired. sometimes these not-so-great changes will
become a fixture of the species based purely on the absurdities of
sex-appeal. these mutations could mean the end of the species down the
road...or as often is the case...something that is successfully worked
around or compensated for.
...i think people often forget that GENERALLY SPEAKING, the weeding out
process is fairly good at sifting through the good and bad traits...but it
is far from absolute. some 'bad' traits wind up becoming cornerstones of a
species future development whereby compensation of one counterproductive
trait winds up structuring the rest of the creatures qualities around it.
lets have some fun and see if we can think of a few of these cases?
i will offer the peacock and his tail. i highly doubt any slight quality it
might have could compensate for the massive pain in the ass it provides.
(pardon the pun)
DrSebby.
"Courage...and shuffle the cards".
----Original Message Follows----
From: "rhinoceros" <rhinoceros@freemail.gr>
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: Female orgasm as proof of God
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 08:46:26 -0600
Female Orgasm: Proof Of God
Science can't explain it, evolution can't understand it and men can only
lie there in awe
http://sfgate.com/cgi
bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/05/27/notes052705.DTL</snip>
[Blunderov] Errr... is it just me or is the evolutionary purpose of the
female orgasm perfectly obvious? Human history has been marked by a high
mortality rate of mothers giving birth. Apart from being incredibly
painful it is a very dangerous to the mother mostly due to the large
size of the baby's head.
If I was female, there would have to be a LOT of incentive to have sex.
A big lot. Luckily there is the female orgasm. The fact that women are
capable of multiple orgasms seems only fair.
Best Regards.
[rhinoceros]
Heh, I posted that article only for the fun effect. A more serious review
appeared in the New York Times, which can be found here (NYTimes now want
money for it).
Critic takes on logic of female orgasm
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0516sci-orgasm16-ON.html
Elisabeth Lloyd's view that female orgasm is just a spandrel, same as the
male nipples, is not new. It has been advocated by Gould, who used to
dismiss evolutionist accounts of female orgasm. Well, Gould did have this
tendency to do sanity checks on evolutionary arguments, which was not a bad
idea overall. On the issue at hand, many arguments have been made that
orgasm is a much more complex neurophysiological phenomenon than nipples and
that its psychological effects may well reach far beyond the act of sex.
An interesting discussion can be found in the evol-psych mailing list (you
need to log-in first):
http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=64;action=display;threadid=32516
----
This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2005 board on Church of
Virus BBS.
<http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=65;action=display;threadid=32620>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
"courage and shuffle the cards..."
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Female orgasm as proof of God
« Reply #7 on: 2005-06-01 12:31:59 » |
|
David Lucifer
Sent: 31 May 2005 16:53
[Blunderov] Errr... is it just me or is the evolutionary purpose of the
female orgasm perfectly obvious? Human history has been marked by a high
mortality rate of mothers giving birth. Apart from being incredibly
painful it is a very dangerous to the mother mostly due to the large
size of the baby's head.
If I was female, there would have to be a LOT of incentive to have sex.
A big lot. Luckily there is the female orgasm. The fact that women are
capable of multiple orgasms seems only fair.
[Lucifer] I don't think that explanation works because you have to
imagine females making the connection between the act of sex and the
potential for pain nine months in the future, even when they have never
had a child. Zach's explanation is probably closer to the truth, that
females orgasm as a side effect of the development of the male orgasm. I
didn't RTFA (as they say on /.) did it mention if humans are unique in
this respect?
[Blunderov1] I didn't RTFA either but I did read the review in 'New
Scientist'; I still don't get it.
<hypothesis>It is mission critical for the male to experience orgasm in
order to ejaculate and thus reproduce.
It is not mission critical for the female to experience orgasm in order
to reproduce.
Therefore the female orgasm is a spandrel.</hypothesis>
What this glosses over is that it is mission critical for the male to
ejaculate WHILE COUPLED WITH THE FEMALE.
If the female has no incentive to stimulate the male in this manner then
opportunities for both sexes to propagate their genes are going to be
rather limited or even non existent.
Females who have acquired an incentive to stimulate males in this manner
are going to both reproduce more often and also pass this characteristic
on to their own girl children. Doesn't seem like much of a spandrel to
me.
What am I missing here? I am genuinely puzzled that the discussion has
got as far as resulting in a book.
Best Regards.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.80
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
RE: virus: Female orgasm as proof of God
« Reply #8 on: 2005-06-01 15:43:21 » |
|
> [Original Message]
> From: Blunderov <squooker@mweb.co.za>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: 06/01/2005 9:32:20 AM
> Subject: RE: virus: Female orgasm as proof of God
>
> David Lucifer
> Sent: 31 May 2005 16:53
>
> [Blunderov] Errr... is it just me or is the evolutionary purpose of the
> female orgasm perfectly obvious? Human history has been marked by a high
> mortality rate of mothers giving birth. Apart from being incredibly
> painful it is a very dangerous to the mother mostly due to the large
> size of the baby's head.
>
> If I was female, there would have to be a LOT of incentive to have sex.
> A big lot. Luckily there is the female orgasm. The fact that women are
> capable of multiple orgasms seems only fair.
>
> [Lucifer] I don't think that explanation works because you have to
> imagine females making the connection between the act of sex and the
> potential for pain nine months in the future, even when they have never
> had a child. Zach's explanation is probably closer to the truth, that
> females orgasm as a side effect of the development of the male orgasm. I
> didn't RTFA (as they say on /.) did it mention if humans are unique in
> this respect?
>
> [Blunderov1] I didn't RTFA either but I did read the review in 'New
> Scientist'; I still don't get it.
>
> <hypothesis>It is mission critical for the male to experience orgasm in
> order to ejaculate and thus reproduce.
>
> It is not mission critical for the female to experience orgasm in order
> to reproduce.
>
> Therefore the female orgasm is a spandrel.</hypothesis>
>
> What this glosses over is that it is mission critical for the male to
> ejaculate WHILE COUPLED WITH THE FEMALE.
>
> If the female has no incentive to stimulate the male in this manner then
> opportunities for both sexes to propagate their genes are going to be
> rather limited or even non existent.
>
> Females who have acquired an incentive to stimulate males in this manner
> are going to both reproduce more often and also pass this characteristic
> on to their own girl children. Doesn't seem like much of a spandrel to
> me.
>
> What am I missing here? I am genuinely puzzled that the discussion has
> got as far as resulting in a book.
I'm not surprised. Its all about sex, orgasms etc . . . even if it is a
bad hypothesis nobody seems to mind reviewing it often. Probably for
similar reasons that fuel an abundance of erotic fiction. To me it seems
that the general pattern of sexual analogues between the sexes (different
expressions of the same fetal lineages) ought to hold true for orgasms as
well. Of course we can act all thankful about it if we want, but I see no
exceptional reason that the rule would be tragically broken in this one
case. Besides, isn't it likely that males would naturally be more attracted
to women who felt the same ranges of sexual pleasure that they themselves
feel? Wouldn't human capacity for empathy work naturally this way? I see
no spandrels here. -Jake
>
> Best Regards.
>
>
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Female orgasm as proof of God
« Reply #9 on: 2005-06-01 14:54:40 » |
|
Jake
Sent: 01 June 2005 21:43
>[Blunderov]<snip>
> What am I missing here? I am genuinely puzzled that the discussion has
> got as far as resulting in a book.</snip>
I'm not surprised. Its all about sex, orgasms etc . . . even if it is a
bad hypothesis nobody seems to mind reviewing it often. Probably for
similar reasons that fuel an abundance of erotic fiction. To me it seems
that the general pattern of sexual analogues between the sexes
(different
expressions of the same fetal lineages) ought to hold true for orgasms
as
well. Of course we can act all thankful about it if we want, but I see
no
exceptional reason that the rule would be tragically broken in this one
case. Besides, isn't it likely that males would naturally be more
attracted
to women who felt the same ranges of sexual pleasure that they
themselves
feel? Wouldn't human capacity for empathy work naturally this way? I
see
no spandrels here. -Jake
[Blunderov1] Thanks for the reassurance. I think it's safe to say that
we 'have no need of this hypothesis' - unless there is something
completely unexpected in the book. So many books, so little time.
Best Regards.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.40
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re:Female orgasm as proof of God
« Reply #10 on: 2005-06-01 17:24:33 » |
|
[Blunderov]
I didn't RTFA either but I did read the review in 'New
Scientist'; I still don't get it.
<hypothesis>It is mission critical for the male to experience orgasm in
order to ejaculate and thus reproduce.
It is not mission critical for the female to experience orgasm in order
to reproduce.
Therefore the female orgasm is a spandrel.</hypothesis>
What this glosses over is that it is mission critical for the male to
ejaculate WHILE COUPLED WITH THE FEMALE.
If the female has no incentive to stimulate the male in this manner then
opportunities for both sexes to propagate their genes are going to be
rather limited or even non existent.
Females who have acquired an incentive to stimulate males in this manner
are going to both reproduce more often and also pass this characteristic
on to their own girl children. Doesn't seem like much of a spandrel to
me.
What am I missing here? I am genuinely puzzled that the discussion has
got as far as resulting in a book.
[rhinoceros]
This hypothesis sounds reasonable and straightforward. Actually it was the first of the 20 hypotheses which the author of the book rejected, according to the NYTimes article.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0516sci-orgasm16-ON.html
Actually this is also the hypothesis which most of the authors of the other 19 theories rejected. Why? "Empirical research".
You say "Females who have acquired an incentive to stimulate males in this manner are going to both reproduce more often and also pass this characteristic on to their own girl children." What if we find out that this does not happen? What if we find out that this characteristic is far from consistent and is actually becoming less common?
From that point on, several theories developed. A second group of theories claim that it is an evolutionary adaptation but a "choosy" one, i.e. female orgasm has evolved to depend on a number of additional conditions which confer certain advantages to their progeny. A third group of theories claim that it used to be a proper evolutionary adaptation which does not function any more and tends to disappear. And a fourth group (Gould and the author of this book) claim that it is just a spandrel which is there because, maybe, it exists in the embryo regardless of its sex.
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re: virus: Female orgasm as proof of God
« Reply #11 on: 2005-06-01 18:51:13 » |
|
Walter
Blunderov wrote:
>rhinoceros
>Sent: 31 May 2005 02:19
>
><snip>This is a funny one.
>
>Female Orgasm: Proof Of God
>Science can't explain it, evolution can't understand it and men can only
>lie there in awe
>
>http://sfgate.com/cgi
>bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/05/27/notes052705.DTL</snip>
>
>[Blunderov] Errr... is it just me or is the evolutionary purpose of the
>female orgasm perfectly obvious? Human history has been marked by a high
>mortality rate of mothers giving birth. Apart from being incredibly
>painful it is a very dangerous to the mother mostly due to the large
>size of the baby's head.
>
>If I was female, there would have to be a LOT of incentive to have sex.
>A big lot. Luckily there is the female orgasm. The fact that women are
>capable of multiple orgasms seems only fair.
>
>Best Regards.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
>
>
--
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Pursue the small utopias... nature, music, friendship, love"
--Kupferberg--
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
LenKen
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 94
Reputation: 7.97
Rate LenKen
Mi caca es su caca.
|
|
Re: virus: Female orgasm as proof of God
« Reply #12 on: 2005-06-01 23:13:39 » |
|
There's actually evidence that the female orgasm does indeed serve a biological purpose, besides making sex more enjoyable for them (especially those whose significant others have mastered the Zen of cunnilingus). I remember reading something in Robin Baker's book Sperm Wars { http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465081800/002-5900234-3744845?v=glance } about females having greater retention of sperm after having an orgasm. So I Googled "female orgasm greater retention of sperm" and found a bit about it in an article entitled "The Orgasm Wars" in Psychology Today....
<snip>
Sperm Competition, with Women Judging
Clues for a reasonable adaptation hypothesis were readily available by the late 1960s, when The British Medical Journal published an exchange of letters about the muscular contractions and uterine suction associated with women's orgasm. In one letter, a doctor reported that a patient's uterine and vaginal contractions during sex with a sailor had pulled off his condom. Upon inspection, the condom was found in her cervical canal! The doctor concluded that female orgasms pull sperm closer to the egg as well.
Yet, it was only three years ago that two British biologists, Robin Baker and Mark Bellis, tested the so-called upsuck hypothesis. They were building upon ideas articulated by evolutionary biologist Robert Smith, who suggested that since women don't have orgasms every time out, female orgasm favors some sperm over others. Baker and Bellis sought to learn just how female orgasms might affect which of a lover's sperm is used to fertilize a woman's eggs.
They asked volunteers to keep track of the timing of their orgasms during sex, and, after copulation, to collect male ejaculates from vaginal flowback--a technical term denoting a distinct form of material that emerges from the vagina several hours after sex (scientists have devised a way to collect it). The team counted sperm from over 300 instances of human copulation.
They discovered that when a woman climaxes any time between a minute before to 45 minutes after her lover ejaculates, she retains significantly more sperm than she does after nonorgasmic sex. When her orgasm precedes her male's by more than a minute, or when she does not have an orgasm, little sperm is retained. Just as the doctors' letters suggested decades earlier, the team's results indicated that muscular contractions associated with orgasm pull sperm from the vagina to the cervix, where it's in better position to reach an egg.
Baker and Bellis proposed that by manipulating the occurrence and timing of orgasm--via subconscious processes--women influence the probability of conception. So while a man worries about a woman's satisfaction with him as a lover out of fear she will stray, orgasmic females may be up to something far more clever--deciding which partner will sire her children.
</snip>
_____________
source: http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19960101-000028.html
You don’t know what you’ve got till your wife cuts it off and feeds it to the chickens.
---------------------------------
Discover Yahoo!
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing & more. Check it out!
attached: index.html
|
One man’s frozen sperm is another man’s low-carb ice cream. 
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Female orgasm as proof of God
« Reply #13 on: 2005-06-02 02:00:44 » |
|
Len Kennedy, Esq.
Sent: 02 June 2005 05:14
There's actually evidence that the female orgasm does indeed serve
a biological purpose, besides making sex more enjoyable for them
(especially those whose significant others have mastered the Zen of
cunnilingus). I remember reading something in Robin Baker's book Sperm
Wars {
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465081800/002-5900234-374
4845?v=glance } about females having greater retention of sperm after
having an orgasm. So I Googled "female orgasm greater retention of
sperm" and found a bit about it in an article entitled "The Orgasm
Wars" in Psychology Today....
[Blunderov] Now this I can believe. Thanks Len.
Best Regards.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Re:Female orgasm as proof of God
« Reply #14 on: 2005-06-02 02:28:24 » |
|
rhinoceros
Sent: 01 June 2005 23:25
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Re:Female orgasm as proof of God
You say "Females who have acquired an incentive to stimulate males in
this manner are going to both reproduce more often and also pass this
characteristic on to their own girl children." What if we find out that
this does not happen? What if we find out that this characteristic is
far from consistent and is actually becoming less common?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
