"A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm"

You better click this link quickly, because it's to the New York Times which quickly makes its articles only available online for payment unless you've got access to Lexis Nexis. Anyway, it's a doozy.

It seems another professor at Indiana University is making headlines on sex research and theory. Dr. Elisabeth A. Lloyd claims the female orgasm has no evolutionary function. "The female orgasm, she said, 'is for fun.'" Hey, I'll take that. Does it really matter why things are supposed to happen?

One (male) theorist claims, "There will be patterns in orgasm with preferred and not preferred men." Well, duh. It's called capable and incapable men. Or rather, skilled and observant vs. unskilled and unobservant. Or even the omnipresent selfish vs. unselfish. In other words, yes, women experience orgasm patterns for men they prefer over those they don't. But the (potentially) orgasm-inducing experience dictates whether or not the man is preferred. Not the other way around.

One female anthropologist (you know what I think of anthropology) suggests, "Perhaps the reason orgasm is so erratic is that it's phasing out." Fuck that. Don't tell me evolution is inherently sexist now.

The article ends with: "'Getting the evolutionary story straight has potentially very large social and personal consequences for all women,' Dr. Lloyd said. 'And indirectly for men, as well.'"

But is that really so? Let's talk about changing societal attitudes about sexuality. Is an evolutionary theory really going to help that? Not when those who dictate sexual attitudes in this country don't believe in evolution!