What do you think?
Rate this book
The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution
Why women evolved to have orgasms--when most of their primate relatives don't--is a persistent mystery among evolutionary biologists. In pursuing this mystery, Elisabeth Lloyd arrives at another: How could anything as inadequate as the evolutionary explanations of the female orgasm have passed muster as science? A judicious and revealing look at all twenty evolutionary accounts of the trait of human female orgasm, Lloyd's book is at the same time a case study of how certain biases steer science astray.
Over the past fifteen years, the effect of sexist or male-centered approaches to science has been hotly debated. Drawing especially on data from nonhuman primates and human sexology over eighty years, Lloyd shows what damage such bias does in the study of female orgasm. She also exposes a second pernicious form of bias that permeates the literature on female orgasms: a bias toward adaptationism. Here Lloyd's critique comes alive, demonstrating how most of the evolutionary accounts either are in conflict with, or lack, certain types of evidence necessary to make their cases--how they simply assume that female orgasm must exist because it helped females in the past reproduce. As she weighs the evidence, Lloyd takes on nearly everyone who has written on the subject: evolutionists, animal behaviorists, and feminists alike. Her clearly and cogently written book is at once a convincing case study of bias in science and a sweeping summary and analysis of what is known about the evolution of the intriguing trait of female orgasm.
Over the past fifteen years, the effect of sexist or male-centered approaches to science has been hotly debated. Drawing especially on data from nonhuman primates and human sexology over eighty years, Lloyd shows what damage such bias does in the study of female orgasm. She also exposes a second pernicious form of bias that permeates the literature on female orgasms: a bias toward adaptationism. Here Lloyd's critique comes alive, demonstrating how most of the evolutionary accounts either are in conflict with, or lack, certain types of evidence necessary to make their cases--how they simply assume that female orgasm must exist because it helped females in the past reproduce. As she weighs the evidence, Lloyd takes on nearly everyone who has written on the subject: evolutionists, animal behaviorists, and feminists alike. Her clearly and cogently written book is at once a convincing case study of bias in science and a sweeping summary and analysis of what is known about the evolution of the intriguing trait of female orgasm.
320 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
18 people are currently reading
923 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
November 15, 2013
There is nothing quite like the glee of seeing a faulty argument destroyed with thorough and effective reasoning, which is what Lloyd does here with various proffered evolutionary theories attempting to explain female orgasm as an adaptation. It's almost universally assumed that the female orgasm must exist because it drives women to have more sex, ergo more babies, which = reproductive success. But when you actually look at sexological, cross-cultural, and animal behavioral data, this assumption fails dramatically. For one, there is too much variation in the trait, between hypo- and hyper-orgasmic women, for a natural selection account to have any power. There is also no evidence that reproductive success in women (or other primates) correlates to their orgasmic capacity! Even mechanistic accounts that rely on the supposed suction of sperm into the uterus after orgasm have pathetically flimsy data.
The problem appears to be that scientists (as well as the lay public) are so desperate to shoe-horn the female orgasm into adaptationist pair-bonding and intercourse-centric accounts that they are ignoring important data as well as the most plausible and parsimonious explanation: that females have orgasmic capacity because men do. Like how men have nipples, women have an orgasmic clitoris because of massive selection pressures on the penis. Criticisms that this explanation is unfeminist are misguided; that something is judged an evolutionary adaptation to selection pressures doesn't mean it has more intrinsic value than something that is not (the 'accidental' existence of male nipples does not make them false, or useless). Although the Bias section is a bit dry, overall Lloyd does a great job of demonstrating how the political-scientific context around female sexuality, including normative notions of how orgasms 'should' happen for women (*cough*hetero intercourse*cough*), results in flawed theory.
The problem appears to be that scientists (as well as the lay public) are so desperate to shoe-horn the female orgasm into adaptationist pair-bonding and intercourse-centric accounts that they are ignoring important data as well as the most plausible and parsimonious explanation: that females have orgasmic capacity because men do. Like how men have nipples, women have an orgasmic clitoris because of massive selection pressures on the penis. Criticisms that this explanation is unfeminist are misguided; that something is judged an evolutionary adaptation to selection pressures doesn't mean it has more intrinsic value than something that is not (the 'accidental' existence of male nipples does not make them false, or useless). Although the Bias section is a bit dry, overall Lloyd does a great job of demonstrating how the political-scientific context around female sexuality, including normative notions of how orgasms 'should' happen for women (*cough*hetero intercourse*cough*), results in flawed theory.
July 18, 2011
This was recommended by PZ Myers in a post some time ago. As someone with adaptionist leanings in evolutionary theory, I'm glad I read this. Lloyd walks carefully through all the evidence and theorizing around the evolution of the female orgasm, coming down in favor of the byproduct account (in a nutshell: female orgasm arises due to strong selection pressure for male orgasm and physiological and developmental homologies between the sexes). She explains why this theory better fits with the available evidence, and why the evidence for alternative accounts falls short. But more interestingly, she also engages in an analysis of why the byproduct account is viewed as discredited and why an adaptionist account built on shoddy evidence is the dominant view. In the course of this, she explains different adaptionist approaches to evolutionary theory, and the way bias affects scientific practice. Lloyd writes in a clearly structured way that isn't the most fluid to read, but carries her point home.
May 29, 2009
The first half of the book is a real page turner. When she starts getting into the discussion of bias and evidence towards the end, even I slowed down and this is completely my bag. But the point was well carried.
The female orgasm seems to have no specific evolutionarily designed [sic:] purpose. Evidence points to its being a byproduct of the rigorous selection for male orgasmic potential. Far from being bad news for feminists, this should delight them since women can finally walk away from the past errors about feeling insufficient if they aren't orgasming at the right time or in the right way. Despite this obvious point of freedom, feminists and many scientists hold to the idea, against available evidence, that the female orgasm must have a use in facilitating reproduction in some way.
The female orgasm seems to have no specific evolutionarily designed [sic:] purpose. Evidence points to its being a byproduct of the rigorous selection for male orgasmic potential. Far from being bad news for feminists, this should delight them since women can finally walk away from the past errors about feeling insufficient if they aren't orgasming at the right time or in the right way. Despite this obvious point of freedom, feminists and many scientists hold to the idea, against available evidence, that the female orgasm must have a use in facilitating reproduction in some way.
September 4, 2011
Dr Lloyd is a genius and a pioneer in the evolution of the female orgasm. The female orgasm is a byporoduct of the male orgasm and a its function is pair-bonding. The logic is sound, sexual satisify each other and there is no reason to stray outside the relationship for sexual gratification.
November 3, 2011
An examination of every available theory out there on the evolution of the female orgasm, and why all but one are terribly flawed. This is not a 'popular science' type of book, though it is written in a fairly easy to read, if not rather dry and repetitive, style. Still and all, Lloyd makes an entirely sensible and devastating case for why all adaptationist theories of female orgasm are comepletely conjectural and based almost entirely on unsupported assumptions, wishful thinking and imaginary data. Though the book uses female orgasm as its case study, it's really about bias in science.
July 6, 2017
A nonfiction book dissecting faulty evolutionary biology theories that made me feel like a wide-eyed kid at the cinema, munching popcorn. ++ now I know why men have nipples. It doesn't get better.
September 14, 2018
I read this a few years back - really enjoyed it but it is not an “easy” read. The vocabulary is largely made up of medical terminology. Overall great read 👌🏼
July 22, 2022
Evidence, when presented in support of one’s own hypothesis, feels good.
Similar evidence, but when presented, quite eloquently, to tear down the prevailing but flawed opposing hypothesis feels much better.
And that is exactly what Dr. Lloyd does in this book, which, I suppose encompasses much of her research, thorough, I might add.
As an evolution buff myself, it was quite satisfying to see the different adaptive hypotheses laid down with their arguments and assumptions, discussed and explained clearly, only to have them torn down, assumption by assumption, each flawed argument step by step, in the very next page.
The book itself is mostly targeted at a scientific audience. Though the author begins the book by giving the necessary conditions, that she thinks need to be answered or fulfilled to consider a trait as adaptive, this book will not be an easy read for someone who is not familiar with the evolutionary theory. Spoiler alert: The book bats for a non-adaptive spandrel-themed theory of the evolution of female orgasm.
Honestly, the amount of knowledge one can gain through the book is immense. Not just the various theories, but the different studies done on sexology research, the prevalence of orgasms in nonhuman primates (and the totally insane ways used to investigate them), the statistics of the prevalence of orgasms (through sex and masturbation) and most importantly, the prevalent androgenic bias in proposing a hypothesis. Most researchers seem to assume, blindly, that women orgasm (or supposed to / or used to in the Paleolithic era) invariably, every time during sex. I mean, how much more androgenic or men-ish, should one be, to base this as one of the primary assumptions when proposing a hypothesis!
Also, totally loved the section on the different definitions of adaptations. It is kinda nice to have an existential crisis, outside one’s field!
Similar evidence, but when presented, quite eloquently, to tear down the prevailing but flawed opposing hypothesis feels much better.
And that is exactly what Dr. Lloyd does in this book, which, I suppose encompasses much of her research, thorough, I might add.
As an evolution buff myself, it was quite satisfying to see the different adaptive hypotheses laid down with their arguments and assumptions, discussed and explained clearly, only to have them torn down, assumption by assumption, each flawed argument step by step, in the very next page.
The book itself is mostly targeted at a scientific audience. Though the author begins the book by giving the necessary conditions, that she thinks need to be answered or fulfilled to consider a trait as adaptive, this book will not be an easy read for someone who is not familiar with the evolutionary theory. Spoiler alert: The book bats for a non-adaptive spandrel-themed theory of the evolution of female orgasm.
Honestly, the amount of knowledge one can gain through the book is immense. Not just the various theories, but the different studies done on sexology research, the prevalence of orgasms in nonhuman primates (and the totally insane ways used to investigate them), the statistics of the prevalence of orgasms (through sex and masturbation) and most importantly, the prevalent androgenic bias in proposing a hypothesis. Most researchers seem to assume, blindly, that women orgasm (or supposed to / or used to in the Paleolithic era) invariably, every time during sex. I mean, how much more androgenic or men-ish, should one be, to base this as one of the primary assumptions when proposing a hypothesis!
Also, totally loved the section on the different definitions of adaptations. It is kinda nice to have an existential crisis, outside one’s field!
December 29, 2020
Cool application of Longino to evolutionary theories of the female orgam
July 25, 2020
Very interesting read. But, as a warning to future readers, this is not a book, it is an academic dissertation. So be prepared to put on that thinking cap and have a dictionary at the ready!
Ultimately, the author is more concerned with using quantitative measures of the female orgasm then subjective descriptions. To me, this book felt like a way of justifying the existence of a sensation specific to females (i.e., the female orgasm). This makes sense, as medical science was founded on the concept that the male anatomy is the norm (i.e., standard human) and the female anatomy is a deviation from that norm (i.e., a man with other parts). You can see evidence of this if you read about the history of female hysteria. All this boils down to the idea that females are left to justify how an experience unique to us is both normal and significant (from a scientific perspective).
In other words, this book comes across (at least a bit) as an attempt to justify the existence of a sensation unique to women. Men have to take our word for it, they will never experience a female orgasm. And the female orgasm does not have such obvious visual proof and evolutionary meaning as the male orgasm (i.e., ejaculate). Yet, any female who has experienced an orgasm knows what she felt. Do we as women have an obligation to prove that the female orgasm exits to men?
After reading this dissertation, I'll admit, 2020 feels much less like the present and more like the past. Are we still living in 1920? 1820? 1720? These days, I'm not so sure there's much of a difference. At least when it comes to certain topics. After reading this dissertation I am left with one question: are women's feelings and physical sensations normal, appropriate, important or are we just deviations of the male anatomy, that can on some level, only ever be considered as malfunctioning men?
Ultimately, the author is more concerned with using quantitative measures of the female orgasm then subjective descriptions. To me, this book felt like a way of justifying the existence of a sensation specific to females (i.e., the female orgasm). This makes sense, as medical science was founded on the concept that the male anatomy is the norm (i.e., standard human) and the female anatomy is a deviation from that norm (i.e., a man with other parts). You can see evidence of this if you read about the history of female hysteria. All this boils down to the idea that females are left to justify how an experience unique to us is both normal and significant (from a scientific perspective).
In other words, this book comes across (at least a bit) as an attempt to justify the existence of a sensation unique to women. Men have to take our word for it, they will never experience a female orgasm. And the female orgasm does not have such obvious visual proof and evolutionary meaning as the male orgasm (i.e., ejaculate). Yet, any female who has experienced an orgasm knows what she felt. Do we as women have an obligation to prove that the female orgasm exits to men?
After reading this dissertation, I'll admit, 2020 feels much less like the present and more like the past. Are we still living in 1920? 1820? 1720? These days, I'm not so sure there's much of a difference. At least when it comes to certain topics. After reading this dissertation I am left with one question: are women's feelings and physical sensations normal, appropriate, important or are we just deviations of the male anatomy, that can on some level, only ever be considered as malfunctioning men?
April 3, 2018
This book is an excellent example of how a really smart person can shed light on an intractable scientific debate simply by coming in and cutting across at an angle to all the arguments at play. Lloyd doesn’t cherry pick to demonstrate an ambitious argument about gender or science; she considers literally all the scientific theories of the female orgasm and carefully (but not humorlessly) diagnoses the dysfunction that has led so many good scientists to do so much bad science. It’s a tour de force. Caution though: there’s a lot of hard science in here, so be ready to skim certain parts unless you are an evolutionary biologist.
May 13, 2008
Easy read...but annoying subject matter - ie biases in science and how little is know about female orgasm. very few studies conducted with very few subjects. bastards.
June 11, 2009
Boo adaptationism!
October 24, 2024
(3.75 - Disclaimer: I am conflicted about my rating because I typically read for pure enjoyment and not so much for study. I didn't "enjoy" this book like I enjoy fiction, but I think this was fascinating in it's own way, and also, important for the field of human sexuality.)
Summed up, this book presents several evolutionary theories (and their subsequent research studies) for the female orgasm and explains why each are fallible in some way. She argues that the work so far generally operates under one or more of the following (faulty) assumptions: adaptionism, androcentricism, procreative focus, and human uniqueness. She points out both theoretical and the statistical flaws in the research.
The book errs on the side of scientific reading and not so much pleasure reading (see what i did there ;)). I admittedly got bored of it and got distracted with some more tantalizing reads (sue me!). However, I appreciate the (completely valid) criticism of the biases in research and the acknowledgement that the realm of human sexuality (specifically female!) has a lot to be discovered!
Summed up, this book presents several evolutionary theories (and their subsequent research studies) for the female orgasm and explains why each are fallible in some way. She argues that the work so far generally operates under one or more of the following (faulty) assumptions: adaptionism, androcentricism, procreative focus, and human uniqueness. She points out both theoretical and the statistical flaws in the research.
The book errs on the side of scientific reading and not so much pleasure reading (see what i did there ;)). I admittedly got bored of it and got distracted with some more tantalizing reads (sue me!). However, I appreciate the (completely valid) criticism of the biases in research and the acknowledgement that the realm of human sexuality (specifically female!) has a lot to be discovered!
December 2, 2023
Polemic, of course, but very well argumented from an evolutionary and biological point of view.
This reading offers not only a dialectical exercise (what it is supposed to be against what it might be) but also shows how difficult (almost impossible) are to fathom the hints and twists of evolution.
Once the book is finished I cannot judge if Lloyd is decisively right or not. But agree with her in how he tackles the topic and how important is to think more than twice these kind of biological riddles... I wonder whether orgasm is, at the same time, adaptative and non-adaptative...
This reading offers not only a dialectical exercise (what it is supposed to be against what it might be) but also shows how difficult (almost impossible) are to fathom the hints and twists of evolution.
Once the book is finished I cannot judge if Lloyd is decisively right or not. But agree with her in how he tackles the topic and how important is to think more than twice these kind of biological riddles... I wonder whether orgasm is, at the same time, adaptative and non-adaptative...
October 2, 2018
This book is definitely not written in a very popular style. However, it is extremely detailed and well argued. Lloyd meticulously dissects and refutes adaptationist accounts of the female orgasm. After reading the book, one wonders how some of those accounts have passed peer-review and why some of them are still widely cited by evolutionary biologists. For everybody who wants a clear example of adaptationism is action, this book is definitely a good choice.
December 19, 2022
I read this as a follow-up to Stephen Jay Gould's "Bully for Brontosaurus" - one of Gould's essays was based on Lloyd's notes that became this book, and a chapter is given over to reviewing the debate that followed the publication of Gould's essay.
Lloyd's thesis (building on Donald Symons' theory) is fairly simple, but easily misconstrued - that the female orgasm evolved as a byproduct of the male orgasm (from an embryology perspective, the structures and pathways involved are essentially the same, just as male nipples are a byproduct of female ones), not as an adaptation in the classic Darwinian natural selection sense. In other words, there is no particular reproductive advantage to it. She, Symons and Gould are not saying that it does not exist, is inferior, or is socially worthless - they are only talking about the process of evolution that shaped it.
In some ways, it's a depressing book. The rival adaptionist theories she reviews and finds lacking are filled with obvious contradictions and basic failures to engage with research findings, and some are also marred by weak experiments and faulty statistics. The roots of the scientific replication crisis go deep. But Lloyd is also mostly clear eyed and fair, always taking theories seriously and following their own logic to the contradictory conclusion.
If there's a weakness, it's that there is perhaps a meta-bias in her review of bias. She builds a strong narrative that several biases - in particular, adaptionism and male-centrism - have led orgasm research astray. But it sometimes feels like she's pigeonholing the research she reviews - in particular, she finds Hrdy's work - an explicitly feminist attempt - male-centric, where the actual assumption that led Hrdy astray is surely the opposite.
Lloyd's thesis (building on Donald Symons' theory) is fairly simple, but easily misconstrued - that the female orgasm evolved as a byproduct of the male orgasm (from an embryology perspective, the structures and pathways involved are essentially the same, just as male nipples are a byproduct of female ones), not as an adaptation in the classic Darwinian natural selection sense. In other words, there is no particular reproductive advantage to it. She, Symons and Gould are not saying that it does not exist, is inferior, or is socially worthless - they are only talking about the process of evolution that shaped it.
In some ways, it's a depressing book. The rival adaptionist theories she reviews and finds lacking are filled with obvious contradictions and basic failures to engage with research findings, and some are also marred by weak experiments and faulty statistics. The roots of the scientific replication crisis go deep. But Lloyd is also mostly clear eyed and fair, always taking theories seriously and following their own logic to the contradictory conclusion.
If there's a weakness, it's that there is perhaps a meta-bias in her review of bias. She builds a strong narrative that several biases - in particular, adaptionism and male-centrism - have led orgasm research astray. But it sometimes feels like she's pigeonholing the research she reviews - in particular, she finds Hrdy's work - an explicitly feminist attempt - male-centric, where the actual assumption that led Hrdy astray is surely the opposite.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews