Question for the evolutionary theorists
Sam Murai
signals and behaviour has contributed to the mating drive or propagation of
the human species.
For example, with female sexual signals, it has been said that long legs are
attractive because adolescent girls on a growth spurt usually grow tall very
fast - so it can be viewed as a sign of sexual maturity. It has been
theorised that as homo sapiens became upright, there was as much exposure to
the front of the female as there was to seeing the rump, so the breasts are
supposedly a mimicry of the buttocks (does that mean a male human gets the
urged to hump a woman's breasts?)
Then there's the theory that because the labia engorges with blood when a
female is aroused, that red lipstick is sexually attractive for that
reason... (that would mean that our ancestral cavewomen would have to shaved
pubic hair for that engorged vulva effect to be clearly visible to a male I
expect)
And supposedly, wide hips on a woman displays child-bearing potential so
that's why big butts / hips are meant to be sexually attractive and so on.
However, there are a couple of things I'm at a loss to understand how some
things which turn people on (warning: male-centric views coming up) can help
with reproduction, not to mention homosexuality which despite not getting
passed on down selectively still thrives in modern society!
For example, why are most males aroused by the concept of oral sex? A
mimicry of the vagina? Certainly the stimulation could be. But then, what
about all those external "cumshots" in mainstream porn? Why is there such a
demand for that "money shot" which is either a facial, or shooting semen
outside of the vagina seen as so erotic?
Such practice does nothing to assist with conception and hence propagation
of the species, and yet, it's so erotically desirable that it's become
commonplace in porn.
Is it because internal ejaculation cannot be filmed and hence less erotic on
film, or are men really turned on by oral sex, ejaculating in a woman's
mouth or on her body etc?
A side thread question I would like to ask of the men is, do they find
external "cumshots" and "facials" erotic in porn and in real life? (I do -
but not exclusively)
Ok, I've posed a few questions in this thread, but the main one which
provoked me to start it was seeing a compilation of "cumshots" in a porn
video, and observing that most mainstream porn climaxes with external
ejaculation.
So the main question here is, if males find this so sexually arousing, how
does that align with evolutionary theory when the sex drive is meant to help
with the propagation of the species?
-Curious Sam
thepixelfreak
> For example, why are most males aroused by the concept of oral sex? A
> mimicry of the vagina? Certainly the stimulation could be. But then, what
> about all those external "cumshots" in mainstream porn? Why is there such a
> demand for that "money shot" which is either a facial, or shooting semen
> outside of the vagina seen as so erotic?
>
> Such practice does nothing to assist with conception and hence propagation
> of the species, and yet, it's so erotically desirable that it's become
> commonplace in porn.
>
> Is it because internal ejaculation cannot be filmed and hence less erotic on
> film, or are men really turned on by oral sex, ejaculating in a woman's
> mouth or on her body etc?
Have you checked out any porn lately. There is a rather large sub-jenre
that devotes itself to internal ejaculation for both anal and vaginal
sex. The directors tend to zoom in on the man such that they can see
the penile ejaculatory contractions. This is almost universally
followed by by the woman pushing the ejaculate out for all to see.
Personally that last part is totally unneeded.
I've never understood the 'money shot' myself and find it entirely more
pleasurable to come inside my wife than out. She tends to concur.
--
thepixelfreak
toramjero
Oh my. Very little is known about the social aspects of sexuality in
the history of the human species. Yet, it is established that the
history of our species is not explained by monogamy and nuclear
families alone.
But since you ask for a wako theory:
-women give no external indication that they are on estrus in our
species (contrary to other primates where estrus is indicated by a
swelling of the genitals)
-women are, however, still likely to be more receptive to male
advances when on estrus
-consequently, males may interpret a receptive female as fertile, as
is a common theme in porn
-then there is large competition between males to make sure that they
get their sperm in the receptive female. In simple words: when they
see another male fuck her, they want to add their sperm to.
-if the other male sperm is visually wasted, that increases your
chances. How romantic.
Do you like it? I think I can produce unproven theories like this one
by the dozen.
Norton
>There have been different hypotheses and theories on how different sexual
>signals and behaviour has contributed to the mating drive or propagation of
>the human species.
>For example, with female sexual signals, it has been said that long legs are
>attractive because adolescent girls on a growth spurt usually grow tall very
>fast - so it can be viewed as a sign of sexual maturity. It has been
>theorised that as homo sapiens became upright, there was as much exposure to
>the front of the female as there was to seeing the rump, so the breasts are
>supposedly a mimicry of the buttocks (does that mean a male human gets the
>urged to hump a woman's breasts?)
>Then there's the theory that because the labia engorges with blood when a
>female is aroused, that red lipstick is sexually attractive for that
>reason... (that would mean that our ancestral cavewomen would have to shaved
>pubic hair for that engorged vulva effect to be clearly visible to a male I
>expect)
>And supposedly, wide hips on a woman displays child-bearing potential so
>that's why big butts / hips are meant to be sexually attractive and so on.
It would take a book to fully describe my views on this, and
they would not be worth anybody's time to read. So I'll be
short about it. But folks should realize that I'm oversimplifying
everything.
I think women basically, and oversimply, are looking for a
good father for their babies. Strong, handsome, virility is
a sign of good health. That means that the father will produce
healthy children. And he'll likely be around long enough to
help those babies grow up. The same applies to powerful men
in powerful positions, including wealthy men. They are good
for survival.
Yes, there is an adventurous spirit too, to move to the other
side of the mountain and start a family, thus protecting the
species in case something happens on *this* side of the
mountain. But I'm trying to be brief.
Women basically are in the business of a small number of
children, well taken care of.
Men, on the other hand, have slightly different aims. They
too are looking for someone who will be a good reproducer.
That means good looks and youth (for health). Wide hips
for less trouble in childbirth, large breasts, symbols of
an ability to feed babies, and so on.
Most are interested in sticking around for a while. But a
fair percentage seem to have the genetics to go for the
"have babies with many women" route. This is especially
true of the wealthy and powerful, because they *can*, and
provide for the children too.
So there is a natural tension between the needs of the woman
and the needs (or desires) of the man.
We've discovered that few, if any, mammalian species are
monogamous. Animals "cheat" because, for the females,
it confuses parenthood and makes a larger circle of males
protective. The males do it because it increases the chance
of the survival of their genetic material.
There's lots more, but Norton has now succeeded in boring
everyone.
>However, there are a couple of things I'm at a loss to understand how some
>things which turn people on (warning: male-centric views coming up) can help
>with reproduction, not to mention homosexuality which despite not getting
>passed on down selectively still thrives in modern society!
Homosexuality (and to a degree) masturbation exist in most all
mammalian species. One theory is that it is a result of a genetic
accident. But what seems clear is that we all protect our own
genetic lines -- we call them "blood lines". Homosexuals help
their nephews and nieces survive, among others. And they can
and do take on parenting functions when necessary.
>For example, why are most males aroused by the concept of oral sex? A
>mimicry of the vagina? Certainly the stimulation could be.
That's an interestng question. On top of everything else we
are social creatures and society conditions us. When I was
young oral sex was forbidden. Nobody nice would do it. You
could NOT expect your wife to do it, nor could they expect it
from their husbands. Thus forbidden fruit became exciting.
And for many, but not all, oral sex is exceptionally and
uniquely pleasureable. Males may regard it as a submissive
act, because of the way it is often done. Many females, on
the other hand seem to enjoy both doing it and having it done.
Probably for the same reasons, although I've been told that
the tactile sensations of having a man in one's mouth are
stronger (though less pleasurable) than having him in one's
vagina. But I really can't know about that.
>But then, what
>about all those external "cumshots" in mainstream porn? Why is there such a
>demand for that "money shot" which is either a facial, or shooting semen
>outside of the vagina seen as so erotic?
Because porn in the early days, even penetrative porn, was often
faked with no orgasms happening. Showing the "money shot" *proves*
that he had an orgasm.
What is missing in porn today is any realistic evidence that
the woman has had an orgasm. That's harder because it is
easy to fake.
>Such practice does nothing to assist with conception and hence propagation
>of the species, and yet, it's so erotically desirable that it's become
>commonplace in porn.
Yes, and often leads to more sex.
>Is it because internal ejaculation cannot be filmed and hence less erotic on
>film, or are men really turned on by oral sex, ejaculating in a woman's
>mouth or on her body etc?
Yes to all.
>A side thread question I would like to ask of the men is, do they find
>external "cumshots" and "facials" erotic in porn and in real life? (I do -
>but not exclusively)
Not too much. I'm far more interested in seeing women pleased.
After all, it ain't *me* that's coming on the screen.
>Ok, I've posed a few questions in this thread, but the main one which
>provoked me to start it was seeing a compilation of "cumshots" in a porn
>video, and observing that most mainstream porn climaxes with external
>ejaculation.
>So the main question here is, if males find this so sexually arousing, how
>does that align with evolutionary theory when the sex drive is meant to help
>with the propagation of the species?
I don't think it does. As I've said above, it is more likely
the result of social conditioning as to what is "naughty". But
I'm certainly no expert and others will have other views.
--
--- Norton
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>There's lots more, but Norton has now succeeded in boring
>everyone.
Clearly not everyone--only some percentage of those who read the post.
I read it, and I'm not bored by it.
--
"Every single religion that has a monotheistic god
winds up persecuting someone else."
-Philip Pullman
-denny-
(not as curmudgeonly as I useta be)
Norton
>On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 02:25:26 +0000 (UTC), Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com>
>wrote:
>>There's lots more, but Norton has now succeeded in boring
>>everyone.
>Clearly not everyone--only some percentage of those who read the post.
>I read it, and I'm not bored by it.
Thanks for the feedback.
I'm sorry about that. I'll try to be more boring next time.
:-)
--
--- Norton
Kat
> Thanks for the feedback.
You didn't manage to bore me either.
> I'm sorry about that. I'll try to be more boring next time.
See that you do.
Pete L
I wonder (and I'm no expert!) whether the idea of women doing
'naughty' things has given them an evolutionary advantage. Who was the
first stone age lady to indulge in oral sex? I wonder whether any
animals go in for oral sex? I doubt it. Nature has decreed that this
is how we do sex and anything else will not produce an offspring. So,
this first stone age lady was good at giving oral sex. Pretty soon the
head of the tribe found out and was impressed by her performance.
Since he was big and strong as a leader she immediately thought it was
to her advantage to keep him happy and stayed with him. After the oral
stuff the biz of producing babies began....
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> I wonder (and I'm no expert!) whether the idea of women doing
> 'naughty' things has given them an evolutionary advantage. Who was the
> first stone age lady to indulge in oral sex? I wonder whether any
> animals go in for oral sex? I doubt it. Nature has decreed that this
> is how we do sex and anything else will not produce an offspring.
You know, not everything humans or other animals do is dictated by the
evolutionary pressure of producing viable offspring. If traits develop
that don't hinder the production of viable offspring, evolution won't
kill them off. Even if something *were* counter-evolutionary, evolution
moves very slowly. All of recorded history is probably not long enough
to have seen significant evolutionary pressure on our behaviours, and we
tend to change our behavioural models fairly quickly now that we have
this 'society' thing going for us.
Full Name
@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, peterla...@hotmail.com
says...> ..I wonder whether any
> animals go in for oral sex? I doubt it....
Many males will nose and lick the genitals of the females in
quite a few species, most obviously in dogs if you hang around
dog parks any (assuming their owners aren't distressed by it and
act to prevent it). The reverse is not observed as far as I
know; however, males often make that up by licking their own.
--
chagin1 at yahoo dot com
Norton
>On 10 Nov, 02:17, Denny Wheeler(REMOVE
>LUNCH)<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 02:25:26 +0000 (UTC), Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >There's lots more, but Norton has now succeeded in boring
>> >everyone.
>>
>> Clearly not everyone--only some percentage of those who read the post.
>>
>> I read it, and I'm not bored by it.
>>
>> --
>>
>> "Every single religion that has a monotheistic god
>> winds up persecuting someone else."
>> -Philip Pullman
>>
>> -denny-
>> (not as curmudgeonly as I useta be)
>I wonder (and I'm no expert!) whether the idea of women doing
>'naughty' things has given them an evolutionary advantage. Who was the
>first stone age lady to indulge in oral sex? I wonder whether any
>animals go in for oral sex? I doubt it.
Well, it would be hard for most to do it. A mouth full of
teeth is, well, off putting...
On the other hand, I think we've all seen dogs licking themselves.
>Nature has decreed that this
>is how we do sex and anything else will not produce an offspring. So,
>this first stone age lady was good at giving oral sex. Pretty soon the
>head of the tribe found out and was impressed by her performance.
>Since he was big and strong as a leader she immediately thought it was
>to her advantage to keep him happy and stayed with him. After the oral
>stuff the biz of producing babies began....
Yup.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>See that you do.
Yes ma'm.
--
--- Norton
Sam Murai
"Pete L" <peterla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0b04fcd2-1679-4348...@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Hey, it worked for Lewinski!
:P
-Sam
Tom Allen
> I wonder (and I'm no expert!) whether the idea of women doing
> 'naughty' things has given them an evolutionary advantage. Who was the
> first stone age lady to indulge in oral sex? I wonder whether any
> animals go in for oral sex? I doubt it. Nature has decreed that this
> is how we do sex and anything else will not produce an offspring.
See, this is why it's a mistake to assume that everything is driven by
evolutionary choices. For one thing, evolution happens over such a large
span of time, that "choices" is pretty much a meaningless term.
In this case, there are very few animals besides humans that can have
orgasms, especially for women. Oral sex would probably have developed as
a cultural, not evolutionary response.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
gilleebee
"Tom Allen" <taoml...@MEsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3qVSk.5391$D32....@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
You should Google Bonobo Monkey and see what you come up with. They are a
fascinating species.
gilleebee
Tom Allen
:winks:
That's why I said "few and not "none."
Bonobos have developed a very interesting culture.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com/
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself. I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
Sam Murai
"Pete L" <peterla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0b04fcd2-1679-4348...@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I wonder (and I'm no expert!) whether the idea of women doing
'naughty' things has given them an evolutionary advantage. Who was the
first stone age lady to indulge in oral sex? I wonder whether any
animals go in for oral sex? I doubt it. Nature has decreed that this
is how we do sex and anything else will not produce an offspring. So,
this first stone age lady was good at giving oral sex. Pretty soon the
head of the tribe found out and was impressed by her performance.
Since he was big and strong as a leader she immediately thought it was
to her advantage to keep him happy and stayed with him. After the oral
stuff the biz of producing babies began....
--------
Also makes me wonder which first stone age man got the idea to put his penis
in the stone age lady's (?) mouth rather than her more arousing rump.
-Sam
Tom Allen
> Also makes me wonder which first stone age man got the idea to put his penis
> in the stone age lady's (?) mouth rather than her more arousing rump.
It was the stone-age lady who said "Grog need to wait another hundred
thousand years until somebody invent Astro-glide."