• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Shere Hite Report - Proof for ID

RandFan

Mormon Atheist
RandFan
Joined
Dec 18, 2001
Messages
60,135
Ok, it's not really proof of anything. But I'd like to know why the vaginal orgasam is a myth? Don't get me wrong, I believe that it is but why? Wouldn't evolution favor vaginal orgasam. How was it that a woman isn't usually satisfied with vaginal intercourse?

(Can I say "vaginal orgasam"?)
 
are you saying that that it doesnt make as much sense to have the major "pleasure center" at the entry to, instead of deep inside of, the vagina because it is not necessary for the male to insert into her vagina to give her pleasure? i think it makes reasonable sense as it is situated now because the man gets maximum pleasure (generally) from deep insertion and the clitoris is stimulated by the pressure and motion of the man making this insertion. so it works pretty well.
anyway, if it was deeper inside the vagina it would be more difficult for men with a smaller penis to satisfy a woman, i suppose.
also, i am not a woman, but i have been with some who, for whatever reason, got a lot of pleasure from the sensations inside her vagina, not just from the stimulation to her clitoris.
 
Not to blow my own trumpet, but my wife has vaginal orgasms.

and how is the existence or nonexistence of these proof for or against ID?
 
speaking of which, what is report referred to in the title of the thread? is there a link? i am sure i could google something, but prefer to get it from the OPer. i am not sure of exact parameters for this statement.
 
Male and female mammals start off in a mixed-gender state. Undeveloped male genitalia still has enough function that orgasm is possible in female mammals even though it is as purposeless as the undeveloped female breast is in male mammals. Humans are in no way special other than we're one of the few species that gets the undeveloped male genitalia in females to work for fun. Which is nice. :)

I don't see how thousands of species of female mammals having undeveloped male genitalia that could give them a lot of fun but never does is proof of "intelligent design". Seems quite the opposite to me. ;)
 
gfunkusarelius said:
speaking of which, what is report referred to in the title of the thread? is there a link? i am sure i could google something, but prefer to get it from the OPer. i am not sure of exact parameters for this statement.
Click to expand...
Damn! No, you are absolutely correct and I have no excuse. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shere_Hite
http://www.answers.com/topic/shere-hite

For example, Hite's work showed that 70% of women who do not have orgasms through intercourse are able to achieve orgasm easily by masturbation. She has criticised Masters and Johnson's argument that enough clitoral stimulation to achieve orgasm should be provided by thrusting during intercourse, and the inference that the failure of this is a sign of female "sexual dysfunction." Whilst not denying that both Kinsey and Masters and Johnson have been a crucial step in sex research, she believes that we must understand the cultural and personal construction of sexual experience to make the research relevant to sexual behaviour outside the laboratory.
Click to expand...
 
wipeout said:
Male and female mammals start off in a mixed-gender state. Undeveloped male genitalia still has enough function that orgasm is possible in female mammals even though it is as purposeless as the undeveloped female breast is in male mammals. Humans are in no way special other than we're one of the few species that gets the undeveloped male genitalia in females to work for fun. Which is nice. :)

I don't see how thousands of species of female mammals having undeveloped male genitalia that could give them a lot of fun but never does is proof of "intelligent design". Seems quite the opposite to me. ;)
Click to expand...
Good response, thanks,

Here is my reasoning (naive as it may be). Male primates copulate, in large part, because it gives them pleasure. Females would be more likely to copulate if they also derived pleasure from copulation.
 
I've heard from several sources that many women need the help of vibrators to experience their first orgasms. Considering that we didn't have vibrators until the latter decade or so of the 19th Century (the companies which manufactured them originally marketed them to physicians as a treatment for "hysteria" in women), I find this really odd. Apparently orgasmic women didn't exist in large numbers until they became technologically augmented, like the cyborgs of science fiction.
 
RandFan said:
Here is my reasoning (naive as it may be). Male primates copulate, in large part, because it gives them pleasure. Females would be more likely to copulate if they also derived pleasure from copulation.
Click to expand...

That obviously makes a lot of sense, it's just the level of female sexuality varies across mammalian species, ranging from apparent disinterest up to a level not unlike the male as we see in humans. So it also makes sense that if it becomes necessary for females to have more interest, a species evolves to gain it. However, it seems the anatomical arrangement didn't evolve to make more sense in terms of increasing the chances of sexual satisfaction during copulation, it's the level and effects of hormones that changed with evolution. Hence females with more sex drive but with the undeveloped male genitalia remaining unhelpfully where it was.

I guess this also argues against "intelligent design" as it's just another way in which the human body is not exactly optimized in a way any intelligent designer would. :)
 
wipeout said:
That obviously makes a lot of sense, it's just the level of female sexuality varies across mammalian species, ranging from apparent disinterest up to a level not unlike the male as we see in humans. So it also makes sense that if it becomes necessary for females to have more interest, a species evolves to gain it. However, it seems the anatomical arrangement didn't evolve to make more sense in terms of increasing the chances of sexual satisfaction during copulation, it's the level and effects of hormones that changed with evolution. Hence females with more sex drive but with the undeveloped male genitalia remaining unhelpfully where it was.

I guess this also argues against "intelligent design" as it's just another way in which the human body is not exactly optimized in a way any intelligent designer would. :)
Click to expand...
Yes, assuming god wants women to have orgasms in the first place. Many societies scrape female sex organs off with a tin can lid because apparently god put the organs there to test the faithfulness of the followers to scrape the redundant parts off. :mad:
 
The obvious question for these barbarians is to ask why God put the same organs in countless other species if they weren't meant to be there but I suspect they'd just try to lynch whoever asked.
 
RandFan said:
Yes, assuming god wants women to have orgasms in the first place. Many societies scrape female sex organs off with a tin can lid because apparently god put the organs there to test the faithfulness of the followers to scrape the redundant parts off. :mad:
Click to expand...


And I have a wonderful idea - oddly enough involving #10 tin can lids folded once- about what to do with the members of those societies who perform or support that process. (I'm not nice, but I am fair!!)
 
Vaginal, as opposed to clitoral. As in the clitoris would have been a penis in the male, and hence the sex nerves are inside it as per the penis, and the orgasm is generate via that mechanism. There is no more "vaginal" orgasm, so the theory goes, than there is a man's ball sack* orgasm.



* I know it's "sac", but I hate typing "sac".


I can't believe I store this **** in my brain. GET OUT! GET OUT OF MY HEAD!
 
fuelair said:
And I have a wonderful idea - oddly enough involving #10 tin can lids folded once- about what to do with the members of those societies who perform or support that process. (I'm not nice, but I am fair!!)
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for the poetic justice aspect, in those societies, women seem to be very much in favor of it.

I once saw some documentary footage on the news of a clitoridectomy performed by a "sanitary barber" in some Muslim country. The "sanitary barber" was male, but all of the onlookers, relatives of the victim, were women, and they were going "Ululululu" as they do when they are very happy.
 
Beerina said:
Vaginal, as opposed to clitoral. As in the clitoris would have been a penis in the male, and hence the sex nerves are inside it as per the penis, and the orgasm is generate via that mechanism. There is no more "vaginal" orgasm, so the theory goes, than there is a man's ball sack* orgasm.
Click to expand...

Well, this stuff about vaginal versus clitoral orgasms is all crap anyway, political crap piled on political crap.

But the clitoris is homologous to the glans penis, which is the portion from the corona and more distal. The clitoral hood is homologous to the foreskin. The labia minora and the vagina are homologous to the shaft of the penis. The labia majora are homologous to the scrotum.

And I think I've already mentioned that all this vaginal versus clitoral is crap anyway. What happened was that Freud made the distinction, and feminists got ticked off at it and so insisted that the clitoral orgasm was the only real orgasm.

Which is stupid, because there is a kind of orgasm in females that involves uterine contractions, which ironically enough is most easily stimulated by means of anal sex. That one, which neither feminists nor Freud seem to have known anything about, actually has an evolutionary advantage, because it causes the cervix to bend, dipping it repeatedly into the pool of semen inside the vagina.

Frankly, I think that Shere Hite should have spent more time getting laid. It would have made her writings more sensible.

* I know it's "sac", but I hate typing "sac".
Click to expand...

The Butthole Surfers' album Psychic, Powerless, Another Man's Sac is, however, notable for the song "Lady Sniff."
 
This one is true :)

epepke said:
it causes the cervix to bend, dipping it repeatedly into the pool of semen inside the vagina.
Click to expand...

yeah saw that in a film at school, was quite impressive, also it was told to us this happens in *all* kind of feminin orgasm, so enabling a better insemination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom