The Female Orgasm: Testing an Evolutionary Adaptation for Pair-Bonding Reinforcement in Potentially Conceptive and Non- Conceptive Pairs ______
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE FEMALE ORGASM: TESTING AN EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATION FOR PAIR-BONDING REINFORCEMENT IN POTENTIALLY CONCEPTIVE AND NON- CONCEPTIVE PAIRS ____________________________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, Fullerton ____________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Anthropology ____________________________________ By Juanita P. Jackson Thesis Committee Approval: Elizabeth G. Pillsworth, Division of Anthropology, Chair John Patton, Division of Anthropology Aaron Lukaszewski, Department of Psychology Fall, 2017 ABSTRACT The human female orgasm, has often been a topic of debate in evolutionary scholarship. Some scholars argue that it evolved to aid in sperm selection of high quality males, others argue that it evolved as part of a pair-bond maintenance system, and some propose that it’s simply a byproduct of the male orgasm. This study compares predictors of female orgasm based on mate qualities, between heterosexual and non-heterosexual women. We predict that if the female orgasm evolved to favor conception with genetically fit males, then female sexual response should be more sensitive to cues of genetic quality in male partners, predicting, to a greater extent, orgasm frequency among heterosexual women. Also, heterosexual women should be more likely to report deep orgasm and orgasms that produce an internal sucking sensation, as these are argued to enhance sperm retention. Also, if female orgasm evolved to reinforce pair-bonds, long- term investing and resource qualities in either male or female partners should predict orgasm frequency. We surveyed 93 heterosexual women and 20 non-heterosexual women, who were romantically and sexually involved with a partner. We found that partner’s physical attractiveness predicted frequency to a greater extent in non- heterosexual women; orgasm centrality and presence of internal sucking sensation was not predicted by sexual orientation. Women experienced marginally more frequency with more compatible partners, and compatibility was marginally greater for heterosexual women. Partner’s resources did not predict frequency in either group. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................. viii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 Testing the Byproduct Hypothesis ........................................................................ 4 Testing the Good Genes Hypothesis ..................................................................... 6 Testing the Pair-Bonding Hypothesis ................................................................... 12 Current Study ........................................................................................................ 15 Hypothesis 1 .................................................................................................. 17 Hypothesis 2 .................................................................................................. 17 2. METHODS ........................................................................................................... 19 Materials ............................................................................................................... 19 Procedure .............................................................................................................. 19 Measures ............................................................................................................... 19 Outcome Variables ........................................................................................ 19 Predictor Variables ........................................................................................ 20 Genetic Quality .............................................................................................. 20 Resource Qualities and Investing Qualities ................................................... 21 Control Variables ........................................................................................... 22 3. RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 23 Participants............................................................................................................ 23 Analyses ................................................................................................................ 24 Tests of Hypotheses ....................................................................................... 25 Prediction 1 .................................................................................................... 25 Predictions 2-3 ............................................................................................... 25 Predictions 4-5 ............................................................................................... 29 iii 4. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 31 5. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 33 Limitations ............................................................................................................ 37 Future Direction .................................................................................................... 37 APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................. 39 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 59 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Predictions Based on Three Hypotheses .............................................................. 18 2. Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................ 24 3. Frequency of Orgasm with Different Stimuli ...................................................... 25 4. Two Sample t-test Reporting Between Group Difference in How They Rate Their Partners ....................................................................................................... 26 5. Main Effect and Interaction of Variables Predicting Frequency of Orgasm ....... 27 6. Logistic Regression for Variables Predicting Likelihood of Orgasm Centrality and Internal Sucking Sensation ............................................................................ 30 7. Results Compared to Predictions ......................................................................... 32 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Orgasm frequency as as function of partner physical attractiveness, by participant sexual orientation ............................................................................... 28 2. Orgasm frequency as a function of relationship duration, by participant sexual orientation ................................................................................................. 28 vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge Dr. Elizabeth Pillsworth for all of her support, guidance and kindness throughout my tenure as a graduate student; I am truly grateful to have had Dr. Pillsworth as my mentor. I would also like to acknowledge my thesis committee Dr. John Patton and Dr. Aaron Lukaszewski for their help and insight in this process. Additionally, I would like to acknowledge my family and friends for their unwavering encouragement, love and support. vii 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION While most women report having been able to achieve orgasm at some point in their lives as a result of some sort of sexual stimulation, the majority of women do not regularly achieve orgasm during sexual intercourse, and some never do (Wallen & Lloyd, 2011). In many ways, female orgasm appears to be analogous to male orgasm: both are characterized by feelings of strong and intense pleasure, followed by a feeling of release once climax occurs (Meston, Levin, Sipski, Hull, & Heiman, 2004), and include physiological changes such as an increase in heart rate, respiration, and blood pressure, and corresponding muscle contractions (Alwaall, Breyer, & Lue, 2015; Komisaruk, Beyer-Flores, & Whipple, 2006). But scholars have generally approached the topic of male orgasm as fairly non-mysterious, as it has an apparently clear link with the biological function of ejaculation. While ejaculation and orgasm are physiologically distinct processes (Alwall et al., 2015), raising some questions concerning the inherent necessity of male orgasm, orgasm is generally coupled with ejaculation, making it subject to strong selective pressures as contributing to reproductive success (Wallen & Lloyd, 2011). Ejaculation during intercourse serves a clear evolutionary function, it helps direct sperm into the reproductive tract of a woman, and occurs in nearly 100% of men during sexual intercourse (Wallen & Lloyd, 2011). In contrast, women’s orgasms are shown to be far more variable. According to Zietsch and Santtilla (2011), 10% of women have 2 never experienced an orgasm, while in a study by Dunn, Cherkas, and Spector (2005),