How often can we make productive connections between the Far Left of sexuality research and the Far Right of Kansas-style science regulation? Not too often!
We learn from today’s NYTimes that "the Darwinian logic behind the female orgasm has remained elusive". This is based on the observation that female orgasm is not required for conception. (Of course, I don’t need an orgasm when I urinate, and stuff still gets output, so personally, I’m not sure about the Darwinian "logic" of male orgasm, either.)
But what if the female orgasm is proof more of Intelligent Design? According to this theory, "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection".
The thought that G*d created the female orgasm is really delightful. Think of the activities that this approach would help to classify as sacred! In fact, to be even more ecumenical by dragging in the Dismal Science (economics) we can postulate after Adam Smith that (at least sometimes) females may be led there, "as if by an invisible hand".
Actually, I’m pretty sure that stuff that feels good to do has evolutionary value if it is directly connected with conception. But those of you who might feel a touch of the divine during this experience (assuming you fall into the right Kinseyan cohort) may wish to consider that only an intelligent process could have produced such a result.
Now, perhaps the Kansas school board would like to reconsider not only its position on biological science, but sex education as well…