送交者: Latino2 于 2005-6-02, 16:47:55:
I ordered a copy of the book, a used one for 20$.
==============================
Interesting, but obtuse., May 26, 2005
Lloyd's argument is persuasive as far as it goes -- she argues very convincingly that female orgasm is not adaptive towards the same purpose as male orgasm. She fails, however, to demonstrate conclusively that there are NO adaptational values for the big O, or that even if it did develop as an epiphenomenon, it persisted because it provided benefit -- at the very least, there's extensive psychological research behind the idea that "happy" people (and if you don't think sexual satisfaction contributes to overall happiness and ability to cope with stress, you need to get laid) tend to become more successful over time in various regards (collecting wealth, receiving social approval, etc) which can play into reproductive success.
She seems to willfully ignore the social bonding role of sexuality both in human societies with looser taboos than our own, and in our near-relatives, the bonobos. She bases part of her argument for orgasm-as-epiphenomenon on the fact that pure-vaginal orgasm (i.e. without clitoral stimulation) is rare, ignoring the fact that only in the most prudish societies does one find sexuality restricted entirely to vaginal intercourse, with no "foreplay" or non-reproductive "recreational" sexual behavior. (And again, observation of related primates suggests that recreational sex is far from aberrational.)
Worst of all, even though she plainly supports the basics of evolutionary theory, she seems utterly unaware that her attacks on adaptationists -- who DO overstate their case, and spin just-so stories, and SHOULD be criticized at times -- will inevitably be yanked out of context by obscurantists.
The book does a grave disservice to Lloyd's field of study.