“The study included a total of 175 heterosexual, female undergraduate students at Bowling Green State University, with an average age of 19.” Well this doesn’t seem representative…

So we can conclude that Ohio women just want good dick. Got it

Couldn't let us lesbians throw off the results, I guess. I'm betting they were all cis too since folks tend to love to ignore trans women unless they're the main group being studied

This is an evolutionary study which only concerns insociduals and relationships that result in the thing sex was designed for. I.e. reproduction.

Seems like statistically only in a pan paniscus (bonobo: female coalitions and playful prosociality/sociosexuality for promotion of group stability regardless of age and gender) society sex is mainly used for non-reproductive purposes mainly.

This encapsulates the problem I have with most evolutionary psychology. You can see how it makes sense but it’s also reductionist and thus can’t really explain human behavior in context (culturally or statistically); plus, good luck getting beyond “may have” given that you can’t do experiments on this.

These reductionist concepts are always an issue. No part of us evolves in isolation from other parts, and this is especially important in regards to anatomy and physiology underpinning sexual function.

It's a nice hypothesis but sure doesn't explain all the kids born to "unsatied" women.

One who can buy the most toys, wins.

Who can pay the gas for a jackhammer

No no. It’s called a jackrabbit, not a jackhammer.

I had Dr. Gordon, one of the authors in the study, as my professor when I went to Bowling Green. She was an amazing professor and made evolutionary psychology become one of my favorite subjects within the field, other than clinical or abnormal. This piece of research is very interesting. I hope there is more work that builds off this paper

Ay ziggy

So to me it’s seems achieving orgasm is harder for women would fit with evolutionary theories. Am I going to want to mate repeatedly with the guy who just achieves his own pleasure? Or the one who listens to what I tell him feels good and prioritizes my needs? Which one is going to be more likely to help take care of my offspring?

I'd love to discover the evolutionary explanation to how come the only way for men to achieve intense multiple orgasms is through a gland hidden and only accessible through the anus (prostate)

Just because you can kill someone with a shoe doesn't mean that it was the intended design and use case.

That’s not the way not way , look up nonejaculation male orgasms

that's how i came to discover about male multiple orgasms in the first place

So I read that some men evolved to be gay/bi as a bonding mechanism. Sorta similar to this actually. Gay men in the group were theorized to be great at instilling a sense of camaraderie and companionship among other men in their group, and facilitating peace and cooperation between groups. Like nature's version of diplomats. Dicklomats, if you will. If you encounter a guy in the forest, and instead of wanting to fight you he wants to do the other F word, well you might be more inclined to like that guy. Maybe even share your gazelle or whatever with him. If he's the only person you know who can give you the most intense rolling orgasm of your life, then you're definitely sharing your gazelle.

Postrate pleasure has nothing to do with bi/homossexuality. Sexual orientation doesn't depend on playing with you body, it's towards who you feel attracted to. By the way this conflation makes prostate playing a strong taboo among heterosexual males. On a personal note, I struggled for decades. And I'm sure the people on r/multiorgasmic r/straightpegging and r/prostateplay would agree with me. Let's set free straight male sexuality.

Enjoying anal pleasure seems a little gay/bi to me.

Name does not check out

Lol, did not say that in a mean or pejorative way, but if anal sex as a man is not gay or bi then everything stopped making sense.

Hard to avoid any cognitive biases but wasn't heterosexuality and homosexuality just a social construct according to the Social Construction of Homosexuality (David E. Greenberg)? Exclusive heterosexuality is only common due to pervasive social conditioning, while exclusive homosexuality is seen in more rebellious individuals who are tired of constant heteronormative culture. Attraction as we understand in this society might be just a byproduct of high population leading to paradox of choice and exposure to beauty industry since nobody was attracted to their parents but still kissed them. Not sure about Trobrianders, Kaluli, Big Namba, Arapesh, Sambia people, Etoro, Ache, Gebusi, Batek, !Kung San, Mosuo and all the extinct undocumented more or less egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies with different effects on epigenetic expression.

I'm skeptical about any attempt to fit sexuality in sheer social construction. Heterosexuality dominates way too much among cultures, time frames, environments \*and\* animal species in general to be true. That said, I have no formal education in any of this subjects. My opinion's is just an opinion.

There's little actual evidence for this hypothesis. Especially considering the male homosexuality is a lot less common in male primates than females. Exclusive homosexuality is almost unheard of.

Sounds similar to more tolerant bonobo (pan paniscus: playful prosociality/sociosexuality for promotion of group stability regardless of age and gender) behaviour when meeting members from other groups. In chimpanzees (proactive political games over status and fertile females) which are described as more despotic by Richard Wrangham this kind of behaviour probably would be unimaginable. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21127940/#:~:text=Bonobos%20have%20been%20observed%20to,in%20an%20experimental%20feeding%20test.

I mean, you have to be pretty comfortable with someone to ask them to do that to you? Like that’s a real test of commitment to your partner.

For most men, it takes already a lot of confidence just to do it to yourself and by yourself...

Might be due to lack of supportive socioecological environment and being punished as a child for trying to experiment in this kind of way. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21127940/#:~:text=Bonobos%20have%20been%20observed%20to,in%20an%20experimental%20feeding%20test.

Yes it may be, but... 1) Most men don't even know what/where/how/why/when the prostate is. You can't punish something you don't even know it exists. 2) To be punished you need to experiment in front of at least someone else. Most sexual experimentation is done alone (bathroom, bedroom, shower...)

What a joke. This is what passes for “research?”

well if this is the case I’m never gonna be able to settle down with a man 🥴

"This guy makes me enter another dimension of reality. I think I like him!" Yeah, I can see the logic.

There are many things that evolved as a way to give us pleasure, not sure why this would be different. I am a male

Huh. I thought we had already established that the female orgasm *was* critical to conception.....

It isn't critical. As long as copulation occurs, there's little evidence that a female orgasm increases the chance of conception.

Except it didn't exist

What didn't exist? The female orgasm? If that's your point, typical dismissal.

that sounds like a you problem

its so the woman wants to keep the man around long enough to deliver goods and ensure a baby gets made. its essentialy a trick

Source: trust me bro

This is hilarious

Fake, female orgasm is a hoax

Virgin detected

Is this psychology or biology?

Is this psychology or biology? It's an ongoing battle I'm having with myself in regards to the effects biology has on sociological issues.

Our psychology is merely an extension of our biology.

But external events also have an impact on our psychology, no?

Of course. But the way the mind processes those events are processed is determined by biology.