throop@cs.utexas.edu (David Throop) (01/22/91)
Has women's sexual responsiveness changed since prehistoric times? Have our sexual practices? Most women do not come to orgasm from intercourse alone. For most women, intercourse must either be preceeded by or augmented by other clitoral stimulation. Has it always been this way? I think of cunnilingus and manual stimulation of one's partner as civilized acts. I find it hard to believe that stone age people practiced them -- at least, I've heard no reports of these practices among chimpanzees. I don't know that anthropoligist have enquired about these practices among primitive cultures. And cunnilingus leaves no fossil remains. But it seems really odd to think that women would have evolved a physiological capacity for orgasm, but have evolved it in such a way that it couldn't be triggered (except rarely) by practices that didn't arise until the advent of civilization. Could most prehistoric women come to orgasm from penetration alone? If so, why can so few modern women? If not, did prehistoric people augment penetration in a manner similar to our modern practices? And if prehistoric women mostly didn't have orgasm when mating, why did the capacity for female orgasm evolve? David Throop
ronald@uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Ronald A. Amundson) (01/22/91)
In article <1991Jan21.170936.10578@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> rpetsche@mrg.CWRU.EDU (rolfe g petschek) writes: >In article <1178@ai.cs.utexas.edu> throop@cs.utexas.edu (David Throop) writes: >> >> But it seems really odd to think that women would have evolved a >>physiological capacity for orgasm, but have evolved it in such a way >>that it couldn't be triggered (except rarely) by practices that didn't >>arise until the advent of civilization. > >Well, this could be an 'accident', like the Panda's Thumb, (a book by >Jay Gould which I recommend you read). However I do not support this >idea, despite the fact that the clitoris is what, in a man develops into >the penis. >-- >Rolfe G. Petschek Petschek@cwru.bitnet It wouldn't be a "panda's thumb", which is itself an evolved adaptation (just not a thumb). But Gould has given a non-adaptational hypothesis addressing this issue in one of his _Natural History_ essays, (sorry I don't have the reference close at hand) and it sounds like the one Rolfe rejects. Gould suggests, on the basis of the developmental homology of the clitoris and penis, that the female orgasm is a developmental byproduct of the evolution of the male orgasm. Male nipples are the same kind of thing. This would explain the anatomical arrangement which seems so "inefficient" when we assume that female orgasm is an adaptation to encourage intercourse: female orgasm isn't as efficient a consequence of intercourse as is male orgasm, simply because it's male ejaculation which makes the babies. (Together with lots of female physiology, of course.) Gould didn't mention (as I recall) one other point possibly explained by his hypothesis. It is widely reported that orgasm is _less_ crucial to a female's enjoyment of sex than it is to a male's enjoyment of sex; females seem to have a richer non-orgasmic sexual experience. If this is true (maybe it isn't) it is accounted for by the evolutionary need for females to _want_ sex, but the lack of an evolutionary need for them to undergo orgasm, which was (on this hypothesis) evolved as an experiential accompaniment of ejaculation. Needless to say, Gould was criticized for undervaluing female experience as compared with male experience. This sort of criticism comes from not understanding the non-adaptationist approach to explaining biological traits. Gould was careful to distinguish the current _importance_ of a trait from that trait's evolutionary _origin_. Female orgasm is an important part of human experience (and non-human experience as well; see S. B. Hrdy, _The Woman that Never Evolved_). This does not imply that it evolved _in order to achieve_ that importance. Our hearing abilities were certainly not evolved in order for us to appreciate classical symphonies; nonetheless the experience of listening to classical symphonies is an important part of the lives of many people. Ron Amundson
synth@yenta.alb.nm.us (Synth F. Oberheim) (01/22/91)
DISCLAIMER: The following speculations, observations and opinions are not intended to be sexisms or prejudices describing modern men and women and their thoughts, attitudes, and practices, and should bloody well not be interpreted as such. throop@cs.utexas.edu (David Throop) writes: > Has women's sexual responsiveness changed since prehistoric times? >Have our sexual practices? I would say yes, although it's hard to make a blanket answer without discussing details: > Most women do not come to orgasm from intercourse alone. For most >women, intercourse must either be preceeded by or augmented by other >clitoral stimulation. Has it always been this way? > I think of cunnilingus and manual stimulation of one's partner as >civilized acts. I find it hard to believe that stone age people >practiced them -- at least, I've heard no reports of these practices >among chimpanzees. I seriously doubt that primitive humans practiced it ... our enjoyment of sex as its own entity, free and separate from reproduction, obviously sets us apart from animals that merely have sexual stimulation as a motivation for reproduction, and, I would think, primitive humans. >I don't know that anthropoligist have enquired >about these practices among primitive cultures. Wait a sec ... it seems you're confusing "primitive man" with "primitive cultures" in today's world. The latter are just as biologically matured as the rest of us. To think of the people in these primitive cultures as being on a par with prehistoric humans is ... questionable. > But it seems really odd to think that women would have evolved a >physiological capacity for orgasm, but have evolved it in such a way >that it couldn't be triggered (except rarely) by practices that didn't >arise until the advent of civilization. Human males and human females are biologically quite similiar ... as a fetus they start out identical. The sexual organs, in particular, simply develop along different paths depending on which sex the baby is going to be -- penis or clitoris, testicles or ovaries. I think it's safe to say that human females have always had a sexual response as long as they've had clitorises, i.e. forever. > Could most prehistoric women come to orgasm from penetration alone? Remember, in purely biological terms, the female does"{not need to have orgasm or sexual arousal in order to conceive. It wasn't necessary for the female to reach an orgasm. So, hypothetically, for countless generations of prehistoric humankind, sexual response was rarely found in the female, simply because it was never explored. >And if >prehistoric women mostly didn't have orgasm when mating, why did the >capacity for female orgasm evolve? It didn't biologically evolve out of nothing. Think of it as being dormant, but always there. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :: :: :: :: :: Synth (F. Oberheim) yenta unix pc (((((In Stereo))))) :: :: :: :: :: :: :: synth@yenta.alb.nm.us Albuquerque where available ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tag - Buster & Babs: "Say good night, Babs." "Good night, Babs."
jeffb@cs.fau.edu (Jeffrey Boser) (01/22/91)
throop@cs.utexas.edu (David Throop) writes: > Most women do not come to orgasm from intercourse alone. For most > women, intercourse must either be preceeded by or augmented by other > clitoral stimulation. Has it always been this way? consider that the pleasure circuits of the brain are very flexible (how about S&M?), and it might be possible that sexual response in women is socially/culturally engrained. .....Jeff jeffb@shark.cs.fau.edu
jpalmer@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (John D. Palmer) (01/22/91)
I believe your facts are not entirely correct; most women do not acheive orgasm solely through penetration, but clitoral stimulation is not required for orgasm. . . thus if primitive man engaged in kissing and caressing, etc, the female may achieve orgasm during intercourse. Unfortunately, you are correct that stimulation doesn't leave 'fossile remains', so we still don't have much information about this. It's an interesting question. Crazyman
jespah@milton.u.washington.edu (Kathleen Hunt) (01/22/91)
From: throop@cs.utexas.edu (David Throop) * Has women's sexual responsiveness changed since prehistoric times? *Have our sexual practices? *... * I think of cunnilingus and manual stimulation of one's partner as *civilized acts. I find it hard to believe that stone age people *practiced them -- at least, I've heard no reports of these practices *among chimpanzees. *... Just a few notes: female orgasm does occur in many other mammalian species. I only know for certain that it has been physiologically confirmed to occur in stump-tailed macaques, the common chimp, and domestic housecats, but I haven't looked into the lit for this very much and probably it occurs in many other mammals as well. There is some speculation that female orgasm in some species might be useful for "pumping" the semen up the uterus & oviduct (this was said re the cats, anyway). Also, you might be interested to know that the bonobo ("pygmy chimpanzee", _Pan paniscus_) does quite commonly do mutual masturbation, female-female clitoral stimulation (known as "genital-genital rubbing" or "G-G rubbing") and various other means of stimulating the clitoris. I haven't read descriptions of cunnilingus in this species. Female bonobos definitely go out of their way to enjoy sex, though. Just some more things to consider. Kathleen jespah@milton.u.washington.edu
bohannon@yoko.rutgers.edu (Philip Bohannon) (01/22/91)
In article <1991Jan21.202957.10822@yenta.alb.nm.us> synth@yenta.alb.nm.us (Synth F. Oberheim) writes: > >And if > >prehistoric women mostly didn't have orgasm when mating, why did the > >capacity for female orgasm evolve? > > It didn't biologically evolve out of nothing. Think of it as being > dormant, but always there. > I find it makes sense to look at it this way: Evolution rewards those genetic characteristics which lead to (healthy, surviving) children. Getting lots of endorphins out of sex leads to more sex more often leads to more children, so pleasure from sex is (was?) an A+ survival characteristic. Why no orgasm every time? Look at it from the DNA's point of view: A male's DNA has the best chance of surviving if it gets distributed to a bunch of women of childbearing age. A female's DNA has a whole different 'idea' -- it would like some useful DNA to combine with, and thus a big, strong, smart, and thus 'attractive' mate should lead to more sexaul arousal and a better chance of orgasm. If smart males are more likely to figure out clitoral stimulation, so much the better. BTW: I bet a nickel female orgasms have been rediscovered a million times over the last million years. They're in style now, and I vote we keep it that way. Disclaimer: With the exception of that last, this is 'academic' speculation and has very fucking little to do with how I understand the role of sex in our society and my life. For example, someone could start with the above, and decide women should stick to their 'natural' roles like monogamy and child care, or some other sexist bullshit like that. Let's hear it for the 20th century survival characteristic of not blowing ourselves up. Philip Bohannon (bohannon@paul.rutgers.edu)
burns@sparkle.uucp (John Burns) (01/22/91)
In _The Straight Dope_, Cecil Adams reports that female stump-tailed macaques have been observed to climax from oral sex with each other (pp. 64-65). In the second volume, _More of the Straight Dope_, he adds reports of female chimpanzees masturbating with twigs and mangos, and of a male gorilla performing oral sex on his mate. Whatever the origins of female orgasm, its recreational use predates humanity. John A. Burns (burns@das.harvard.edu, burns@huche1.bitnet) "Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it."
geb@dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) (01/22/91)
In article <1991Jan22.000650.3642@chinet.chi.il.us> dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes: > >Basically, the author claims that women have never seriously been considered >in evolutionary studies of 'man', and that if they are, some mysteries can >be neatly solved (like "Why do we only have hair on our heads?"). > We meaning women? Some of us men have less hair on our heads than anyplace else (except palms and soles).
whos@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) (01/23/91)
throop@cs.utexas.edu (David Throop) writes: > I think of cunnilingus and manual stimulation of one's partner as >civilized acts. I find it hard to believe that stone age people >practiced them -- at least, I've heard no reports of these practices >among chimpanzees. I don't know that anthropoligist have enquired >about these practices among primitive cultures. Check your sources. In Cecil Adams' _The_Straight_Dope_ (or possibly _More_of_the_Straight_Dope_) he describes the sex habits of chimps and apes. Included -- A chimp using a twig as a dildo, cunnilingus, homosexuality, and mutual masturbation. -- whos@ddsw1.MCS.COM | I don't know, who's at DDSW1? | whos@ddsw1.MCS.COM! I asked YOU who's at DDSW1! Ok, there's a guy at DDSW1, right? | Right! Who? | Exactly! | What? | No, he's at lll-winken. | Where? | No, What! | I don't know! | He's at gargoyle. | Who? | No, he's at DDSW1.MCS.COM!
jmw@brahms.amd.com (Mike Wincn) (01/24/91)
In article <1178@ai.cs.utexas.edu> throop@cs.utexas.edu (David Throop) writes: [...] > Most women do not come to orgasm from intercourse alone. For most >women, intercourse must either be preceeded by or augmented by other >clitoral stimulation. Has it always been this way? How do you know this? What constitutes "most" in your claim? > I think of cunnilingus and manual stimulation of one's partner as >civilized acts. I find it hard to believe that stone age people >practiced them -- at least, I've heard no reports of these practices >among chimpanzees. What makes you think that sexual practices of chimpanzees has anything to do with the sexual practices of humans? (And, just in case you're thinking of it, I'm not a whit interested in hearing about bestiality.) [...] > But it seems really odd to think that women would have evolved a >physiological capacity for orgasm, but have evolved it in such a way >that it couldn't be triggered (except rarely) by practices that didn't >arise until the advent of civilization. Only "odd" if your premises are to be believed, which, thus far, have not been supported whatsoever. Further, you haven't presented a bit of evidence to suggest that current sexual practices _haven't_ been in vogue since pre-history. The little bit I know of ancient artifacts suggests that they _have_. > Could most prehistoric women come to orgasm from penetration alone? Who knows? Why would it matter? >If so, why can so few modern women? If not, did prehistoric people >augment penetration in a manner similar to our modern practices? And if >prehistoric women mostly didn't have orgasm when mating, why did the >capacity for female orgasm evolve? This is a very silly line of reasoning. There isn't any way of knowing answers to this, and your premises are full of holes. You're at U Texas? I suggest a refresher course or two in logic and deductive reasoning. -- Mike Wincn jmw@brahms.AMD.COM (408) 749-3156 DISCLAIMER: I speak for myself unless noted otherwise.
feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit) (01/24/91)
In article <5420@husc6.harvard.edu> burns@das.harvard.edu (John Burns) writes: >In _The Straight Dope_, Cecil Adams reports that female stump-tailed >macaques have been observed to climax from oral sex with each other (pp. >64-65). In the second volume, _More of the Straight Dope_, he adds reports >of female chimpanzees masturbating with twigs and mangos, and of a male >gorilla performing oral sex on his mate. Whatever the origins of female >orgasm, its recreational use predates humanity. Ah, but you are making the mistake of envisioning evolution as a ladder (a common, but no-longer-acceptable metaphor), upon which we (humans) perch on the top, and chimps and macaques are below us. On the contrary, evolution is a tree with EVERY species in existance at the same level on a leaf. Every species has had the exact same time in which to evolve. It may BE true that primate females orgasmed before the more recent splits (apes/homo, 5-7 million ? yrs ago)... But it does NOT follow that because chimp females orgasm, we did in pre-homo sapiens' time. Not to take one side or the other, however.... I like the idea of recreational sex WAAAAYYY back in our (pre-)history 8-) >John A. Burns (burns@das.harvard.edu, burns@huche1.bitnet) >"Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it." Really?!? Fleas fall in love? Well, I'll be! 8-) Elissa Feit (feit@cs.buffalo.edu // {rutgers,uunet}!cs.buffalo.edu!feit) "I had to regain my confidence so I got into camoflauge. The girls they love to see you shoot." "I love a man in uniform." - Gang of Four
dino@cube.rci.dk (Hans Dinsen-Hansen) (01/24/91)
In <14868@milton.u.washington.edu> jespah@milton.u.washington.edu (Kathleen Hunt) writes: >From: throop@cs.utexas.edu (David Throop) >* Has women's sexual responsiveness changed since prehistoric times? >*Have our sexual practices? >* I think of cunnilingus and manual stimulation of one's partner as >*civilized acts. I find it hard to believe that stone age people >*practiced them -- at least, I've heard no reports of these practices >*among chimpanzees. >*... > >Just a few notes: female orgasm does occur in many other mammalian species. >... >Also, you might be interested to know that the bonobo ("pygmy chimpanzee", >_Pan paniscus_) does quite commonly do mutual masturbation, female-female >clitoral stimulation (known as "genital-genital rubbing" or "G-G rubbing") >and various other means of stimulating the clitoris. I haven't read >descriptions of cunnilingus in this species ... >go out of their way to enjoy sex, though. >Just some more things to consider. >Kathleen >jespah@milton.u.washington.edu Thanks for hearing a woman' opinion. May I, a male, add some more to this discussion. >From: throop@cs.utexas.edu (David Throop) I quote further: >* ... I don't know that anthropoligist have enquired >*about these practices (cunnilingus) among primitive cultures. >* Has women's sexual responsiveness changed since prehistoric times? >*Have our sexual practices? The anthropologist and explorer Knud Rasmussen, who spoke and wrote the Innuit (Eskimo) language, has collected many Innuit myths and sagas. Some can be found in his "collected works", others were - after his death - classified by his wife because of their immoral nature. However, in KR's "collected works" one can find a myth from North Canada. I do not have the reference by hand, but I quote from memory: - Some Great Hunter came to a settlement, where all or most adult males had been killed by some kind of beast. This Great Hunter killed the beast and thus saved the settlement. As a reward for his great deed the women of the settlement ordered him lie on his back, after which the women would stand in a line, and the Great Hunter was granted the favor of sniffing to their secret parts. (!) The way I understand the myth as re-told by KR, cunnilingus in "primitive cultures" is a favor granted by the woman to the man. In some, perhaps most, sub-cultures of modern civilization cunnilingus is regarded the other way around. The reason for that I could only guess about. It might be that most "primitive cultures" comprise cleanliness, whereas public baths and touching oneself down there has been fought by the churches for a long period in Western European civilization. Perhaps soap and various perfumes, as opposed to the primitive washing in plain water may also be guilty. / | My opinion! | / Hans Dinsen-Hansen (The local Dino-saur) | Probably | / RCI, Hovedvejen 9, Glostrup, DK-2600 Denmark | not shared | / (+45) 4297 5366 X 292 |by my company|
margoli@IBM.com (Larry Margolis) (01/25/91)
In <55783@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit) writes: > Not to take one side or the other, however.... I like the idea of > recreational sex WAAAAYYY back in our (pre-)history 8-) Yeah - Jean Auel's "Earth's Children" series! Great stuff!
debbiek@rruxc.uucp (25670-D. Kennedy(i555)t669) (01/29/91)
> Has women's sexual responsiveness changed since prehistoric times? > Have our sexual practices? > Most women do not come to orgasm from intercourse alone. For most > women, intercourse must either be preceeded by or augmented by other > clitoral stimulation. Has it always been this way? > prehistoric women mostly didn't have orgasm when mating, why did the > capacity for female orgasm evolve? > > David Throop > > David, IMO, I would suspect that a Yes would answer all questions except the last. I would say that (prehistoric) females always had the capacity for orgasm but the male didn't know this and she probably didn't know it either and if she did (you hear all the time that our mothers or grandmother didn't know they could enjoy it?) prehistoric people lacked speech beyond grunts and stuff. But whether she could do anything about it is the real argument because wouldn't he just drag her behind the rocks by her "hair" (:))? Deb P.S. Ever see "Quest for Fire"?
eang42@castle.ed.ac.uk (L Bootland) (01/29/91)
I believe that mutual masturbation in primates is important for social bonding. I also remember seeing a theory that one reason women do not have oestrus cycles is that increased sexual availability, plus increased difficulty of predicting fertile times (and hence times when leaving your mate is a bad idea in case somemale else impregnates her), are important in strengthening the pair bond. This increases the chance that the male will stay around to help rear the young, which is important in humans. I wonder if the foreplay/ mutual masturbation in humans also contributes to this bonding? L.Bootland
sbishop@desire.wright.edu (02/01/91)
In article <5420@husc6.harvard.edu>, burns@sparkle.uucp (John Burns) writes: > In _The Straight Dope_, Cecil Adams reports that female stump-tailed > macaques have been observed to climax from oral sex with each other (pp. > 64-65). In the second volume, _More of the Straight Dope_, he adds reports > of female chimpanzees masturbating with twigs and mangos, and of a male > gorilla performing oral sex on his mate. Whatever the origins of female > orgasm, its recreational use predates humanity. > > John A. Burns (burns@das.harvard.edu, burns@huche1.bitnet) > "Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it." Actually, in many species, the male licks or nuzzles the female's genitals to prepare her for mating. Dogs, cattle, goats, sheep, cats, etc.
HCM100@psuvm.psu.edu (Hans C. Masing) (02/14/91)
In article <1178@ai.cs.utexas.edu>, throop@cs.utexas.edu (David Throop) says: > > Has women's sexual responsiveness changed since prehistoric times? >Have our sexual practices? [ Stuff Deleted ] > But it seems really odd to think that women would have evolved a >physiological capacity for orgasm, but have evolved it in such a way >that it couldn't be triggered (except rarely) by practices that didn't >arise until the advent of civilization. [ More stuff deleted ] > Could most prehistoric women come to orgasm from penetration alone? >If so, why can so few modern women? If not, did prehistoric people >augment penetration in a manner similar to our modern practices? And if >prehistoric women mostly didn't have orgasm when mating, why did the >capacity for female orgasm evolve? > >David Throop > > Studies have shown (and video tapes have been made) of female chimpanzees achieving orgasm through masturbatory techniques. It seems that if we did evolve from the apes, that the ability to orgasm for women evelved along with them. Personally, I think that it's a scam so that they get 'extras' in bed!!! :-) (Really, that was a joke meant in all caring and that) Hans 'I'm gonna either get flamed or get alot of dates for that' Masing
lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) (02/14/91)
>> >> Has women's sexual responsiveness changed since prehistoric times? >>Have our sexual practices? > [ Stuff Deleted ] > >> But it seems really odd to think that women would have evolved a >>physiological capacity for orgasm, but have evolved it in such a way >>that it couldn't be triggered (except rarely) by practices that didn't >>arise until the advent of civilization. > [ More stuff deleted ] > >> Could most prehistoric women come to orgasm from penetration alone? >>If so, why can so few modern women? If not, did prehistoric people >>augment penetration in a manner similar to our modern practices? And if >>prehistoric women mostly didn't have orgasm when mating, why did the >>capacity for female orgasm evolve? >> I beg your pardon, but why would you think that the advent of civilization is a pre-requisite for techniques, male or female applied, which can stimulate orgasm? I rather doubt that the prehistoric females were any more tolerant of "me Tarzan, you Jane" male techniques than modern ones are.
throop@cs.utexas.edu (David Throop) (02/15/91)
Hans C. Masing writes (in sci.bio) >Studies have shown (and video tapes have been made) of female chimpanzees >achieving orgasm through masturbatory techniques. If these pictures are out there, why haven't they been posted to alt.sex.pictures? ;-) David Throop
u1365281@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (02/21/91)
I came in late on this, so I don't exactly know where it came from: >>> But it seems really odd to think that women would have evolved a >>>physiological capacity for orgasm, but have evolved it in such a way >>>that it couldn't be triggered (except rarely) by practices that didn't >>>arise until the advent of civilization. >> [ More stuff deleted ] >> >>> Could most prehistoric women come to orgasm from penetration alone? >>>If so, why can so few modern women? If not, did prehistoric people >>>augment penetration in a manner similar to our modern practices? And if >>>prehistoric women mostly didn't have orgasm when mating, why did the >>>capacity for female orgasm evolve? >>> > I beg your pardon, but why would you think that the advent > of civilization is a pre-requisite for techniques, male or > female applied, which can stimulate orgasm? I rather > doubt that the prehistoric females were any more tolerant > of "me Tarzan, you Jane" male techniques than modern ones > are. It is certainly possible that the female orgasm is not an adaptation at all, but a pleiotropy connected genetically to the male orgasm. A friend of mine, Elizabeth Lloyd, at the philosophy department at Berkeley is writing a book that argues this. She finds problems with all of the current adaptive explanations. I beleive this is her current position.
teexmmo@ioe.lon.ac.uk (Matthew Moore) (02/26/91)
In article <1991Feb21.194210.1665@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> u1365281@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au writes: >I came in late on this, so I don't exactly know where it came from: > >>>> But it seems really odd to think that women would have evolved a >>>>physiological capacity for orgasm, but have evolved it in such a way >>>>that it couldn't be triggered (except rarely) by practices that didn't >>>>arise until the advent of civilization. >>> [ More stuff deleted ] >>> >>>> Could most prehistoric women come to orgasm from penetration alone? >>>>If so, why can so few modern women? If not, did prehistoric people >>>>augment penetration in a manner similar to our modern practices? And if >>>>prehistoric women mostly didn't have orgasm when mating, why did the >>>>capacity for female orgasm evolve? >>>> >> I beg your pardon, but why would you think that the advent >> of civilization is a pre-requisite for techniques, male or >> female applied, which can stimulate orgasm? I rather >> doubt that the prehistoric females were any more tolerant >> of "me Tarzan, you Jane" male techniques than modern ones >> are. > I too am joining this discussion late, so apologies for any ground retrodden... Elaine Morgan considers the question of the female orgasm in 'Descent of Woman' and in her later works on evolution. She takes the view that easy 'natural' orgasm was lost when face to face mating postures were adopted in preference to rear entry type postions, because the parts stimulated during rear entry mating are not stimulated during face to face mating. Then why not revert to rear entry mating then? Well unfortunately the slope of the vagina has changed, and as a result, the pubic bone now prevents effective stimulation of the appropriate area (the ventral wall of the vagina). Even if you dont agree with Morgan (the views presented here form part of hte 'aquatic theory'), she writes well, and addresses the important question 'why is sex so difficult' early on.