Have you considered the crazy possibility that female orgasm may serve the same purpose as real orgasm does? That is, providing immediate reward to make people disregard the long term consequences. For both kinds of people.
Even evolutionary scientists understand that if there were no pleasure involved in squishing genitals together, people would do it a lot less often. We would only get down to it when we explicitly want a baby – never for fun. Sadly, scientists are still slaves to Victorian presuppositions, and thus only understand the relevance of orgasm for the reproduction of men. What females may or may not want is evolutionarily irrelevant because… they are smaller on average?
They even convinced themselves that it’s female libido has always been naturally low to begin with – and it wasn’t just caused by the centuries of aggressive social reinforcement and teaching girls that they are are not supposed to enjoy sex. Why repeating it if Nature did it anyway? Why does Nature need the dedicated lip service of social enforcers? Why the detestable obsession to mutilate female genitals if women have naturally low libido anyway? Aren’t we getting things the wrong way around? And not just laypeople, but supposedly “objective” scientists?
Even asking the question “what is the female orgasm for” is deeply troubling. And the answer should leave every woman scared. These supposedly objective scientists hypothesized (which is a fancy word for presumption) that it is just the “evolutionary equivalent of an appendix”. In other words, redundant and not needed.
The question only makes sense if you assume that sexual reproduction would work perfectly well without consent. In other words, rape. But sexual reproduction wouldn’t have brought us this far if it were based on rape. Regardless of what some idiots decided to believe, that aggressive, brainless males could put their dicks into any unwilling female at any time.
But it might not be best practice for a species. Imagine what would happen to the unfortunate females, who cannot escape. And the rest would just defend themselves – maybe in groups. How does that sound for the survival of the species? Does it still sound likely to work? What would it mean to human civilization? Or is it asking too much? Why do scientists (humans with the ability to think and make decisions) question other humans’ ability to do the same?
Females also need some motivation to get down to it. No, they are not frigid. At least not by biology. Your confusion is that female orgasm is so “difficult” to achieve, I get it – but it is cultural. Don’t embarrass yourself trying to explain it away. We’ve been through this on this blog, actually. Any rational person should just wonder how female orgasm is even possible despite society.
How could a female spend her girlhood terrorized by the sin of sex and keep saying no – but exhibit a healthy sexuality right when she’s supposed to, after marriage (a legal concept, not an evolutionary one)? At which point should she make the switch and cleanse her mind from the disgust she was brought up to feel about sex? Can you see how it works? Still not?
How is a boy supposed to grow up into a sexually considerate man if he is continuously bombarded with the message that he is always supposed to want sex, no matter what and whom and how? How could he not end up seeing sex with women as artisanal, luxury masturbation? Why would this damaged creature ever put some effort into female orgasm – if he can put the same effort into conjuring up incredibly convoluted hypotheses based on the premise that “female orgasm serves no apparent purpose”.
How many more ways can you tell women to just shut up and spread their legs for you?
How about assuming that ‘female orgasm’ is also necessary? Just like the so called ‘orgasm’
Without arousal it would be simple coercion and avoided like the plague – unless for babies. Arousal is the promise of an orgasmic release and without it your dick would have a much harder time using female bodies as an outlet.
Women need some motivation to have sex too, you know. What makes you so blind that you sink time and money into researching how exactly it is unnecessary? And thereby testify how unable you are to adjust to the idea of humanity and civilization – and feel vindicated by a rigid, man-made theory of evolution, which assumes that men need an incentive for sex but women don’t.
What if I tell you that females are also people and for the miracle of voluntary cooperation to evolve, they must get something out of it, too? So that not only rapist jerks and too slow females reproduce. There. Does that satisfy your simplistic need for evolutionary-sounding justifications? Does that sound like something you could publish safely – without risking scientific exorcism and ending your career because you have failed to adhere to the group think and The Only Right Way To Interpret The World And Everything In It?
Just because social expectations have screwed up sex for everyone, it doesn’t mean that it was not supposed to be pleasurable to begin with. If a few hundred years of religionist prudishness put a veil over your thinking – should you even call yourself a scientist? Orgasm-as-incentive should be the explanation for both man-people and woman-people. Occam’s razor and all that. It’s amazing how gender shrouds vision. Maybe reality is not wrong – maybe it’s one of your assumptions.
Deal with it, sexist scientists, and stop telling women to shut up and stop expecting pleasure or you won’t ‘get’ any sex and there goes the survival of your species. Evolutionary equivalent of an appendix, my ass.
Follow on Facebook or Twitter @AreUnseen or subscribe to newsletter