Human beings across the world and throughout time have practiced many many different sexual practices, taboos and traditions. Even within the same culture we can see a lot of variation. I see it simply as if it exists, there must be a reason for it. The explaination dosn't need to be complex either. You have a good point. Orgasms are fun, that's enough for me.

Overall, orgasm frequency was higher for the identical female twins than the non-identical female twins, which the researchers said suggested there must be some genetic component.

Unless that's a misquote, it says exactly the opposite. We would expect the frequency of orgasm in one twin to be correlated with the frequency in the other twin, not that identical twins would have consistently higher frequencies.

"Hmm. Can someone explain to me how this proves that it is genetic? Aren't twins exposed to differing life experiences and socializing processes despite sharing identical DNA composition?"
"Unless that's a misquote, it says exactly the opposite."
Given what is said http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/107/108409.htm and other sites (searched on google news) as well as what is suggested in the abstract (linked to off of http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/) that seems to be a misquote - the frequency of orgasm varies more in non-identical twins than in identical twins. Twin studies are used a lot to suggest when something might be genetic versus environment because in general, both identical and non-identical pairs are exposed to very similar environments (assuming we are only looking at pairs raised together). Thus, if identical twins are more similar, it is usually attributed to the genetic influence. Then specific statistical techniques are used to determine what % of the variation is attributed to the particular factor that is varied - in this case, genetics. Although clearly there are some caveats (for instance, twins who are identical might be treated more similarly, thus introducing a confounding variable - the stats is supposed to take care of this, but one can differ), this is fairly standard methodology. You might criticize it as a general method, but it isn't specific to this study.

Also, I'm a little curious about why it is particularly "bad" that the authors suggest validity? I haven't been able to read the whole article because it costs money, but the quotes I have seen suggest that Spector (one of the authors) thinks evolution plays a role in why male/female orgasms are different in timing/etc. and then suggests that maybe it helps women discriminate between partners. This is different than him saying that women might use orgasms to discriminate between partners and thus there is an evolutionary basis for orgasms. I agree that it might be interesting to consider why the authors are interested in if female orgasm is heritable, but I'm somewhat inclined to believe the reasons that Spector gives - he thinks female lack of orgasm should be treated as seriously as male impotence. Okay, then we get into lots of discourse about medicalization of sexuality, but given that this discourse permeates sexuality currently, it doesn't seem like he's asking the question to be sexist or show that women are dysfunctional - he wants look at how much of the differences in orgasmic function are based on environment and how much might be biological. I guess I'm not really sure what validity concerns you have. Again, I haven't read the whole article so maybe you could be more specific about what you're concerned about, but it's a fairly standard methodology and the evolutionary theorizing is not the center of the study. His motives in asking the question or the choice of question might lead one to look at if he is being sexist, but again, I'm not sure how this threatens the validity of the study.

Acutally, it makes sense if you assume that orgasming is a biological function, which it is, and if it's related to the way a woman's body is shaped, which I think that it is. Some women's clits are probably placed higher on their bodies than others or are more sensitive, and therefore those women come easier the way they are "supposed" to from intercourse. Other women are probably not non-orgasmic, they just need to do it in a more female-centric way.

Thanks epi-
I actually took that quote from BBC News, but I will try and get my hands on the actual study. My validity concerns were that it is a male researcher studying the female orgasm (which I think IS a validity threat) and the bit about "using" twins to prove a genetic relationship in human behavior and phenomena (thanks for the explanation). I see what your saying, and I don't know/think that Spector is uniquely more sexist then an already inherently sexist medical community. I just am not ready to shift attention from a culture that fails to appropriately facilitate (through cultural practice and education) the female orgasm and replace this failure with something "genetically wrong" with women. Yeah, I think that is what I am trying to say :)

Annoying (but telling) FYI:

MSNBC has this story up and it's "related story" is Sexploration: Don't be a desperate housewife

The standard use of twins doesn't disturb me a bit, but the standard quest for evolutionary advantage for each and every generic trait does. In my world view, the fact that a trait is hereditary does not imply or necessitate that this particular trait is beneficial to us.

The way I understand Natural Selection is that we have a stock of genes, or variance, which consists of those genes and varieties that have not been too disadvantageous to our ancestors. They have been able to survive despite their genes. Now, this stock contains a higher percentage of beneficial genes than our competitors had at the time they competed. But it also contains genes that have no use for us, and genes that are disadvantageous to us. It is important too to have them all, because even the worst gene may turn out to be a saviour in a new environment, even if the difference in environment may seem minimal.

The way I would put it is that unfortunately many women have real, physical difficulties with orgam, and that is just plain harmless coincidence regarding evolution. It does not prevent reproduction, so it is not a problem to natural selection. Well, at least it is not a problem too big for natural selection to drop it. Women do get pregnant anyway. In fact, we humans bear a whole lot of unuseful and harmful genes that do not stop our reproduction. And the researchers could spend more of their tie with more advantageous topics.

Timi

The standard use of twins doesn't disturb me a bit, but the standard quest for evolutionary advantage for each and every generic trait does. In my world view, the fact that a trait is hereditary does not imply or necessitate that this particular trait is beneficial to us.

The way I understand Natural Selection is that we have a stock of genes, or variance, which consists of those genes and varieties that have not been too disadvantageous to our ancestors. They have been able to survive despite their genes. Now, this stock contains a higher percentage of beneficial genes than our competitors had at the time they competed. But it also contains genes that have no use for us, and genes that are disadvantageous to us. It is important too to have them all, because even the worst gene may turn out to be a saviour in a new environment, even if the difference in environment may seem minimal.

The way I would put it is that unfortunately many women have real, physical difficulties with orgam, and that is just plain harmless coincidence regarding evolution. It does not prevent reproduction, so it is not a problem to natural selection. Well, at least it is not a problem too big for natural selection to drop it. Women do get pregnant anyway. In fact, we humans bear a whole lot of unuseful and harmful genes that do not stop our reproduction. And the researchers could spend more of their tie with more advantageous topics.

Timi

Well I would think nerve endings, blood vessels, and how close they are to the skin would be a genetic factor.

Surely the nerve endings, blood vessels, and how close they are to the skin are a genetic factor. That is not the point.

What we are discussing here is that the researchers claim that orgasm being not so easy gives some kind of evolutionary benefit. I cannot understand why it needs to be explained by evolutionary benefit at all. It doesn't make sense to me. None. And it doesn't make sense to me to always look for evolutionary benefit for every generic factor. It just doesn't make sense. Not everything needs to be beneficial. It is just enough to not be fatal, that's all.

Agreed, Timi. The fact is that it sounds like normal human variation. Some men have more sensitive penises than other and no one is saying that having a less sensitive penis is some sort of adapted trait.

no one is saying that having a less sensitive penis is some sort of adapted trait.

Are you sure about that? Do a Google scholar search.

Not all research by men pertaining to women is part of some larger patriarchal conspiracy.

The researcher relies on the self-reporting of women about their orgasms. The rest is just statistical analysis. It is pretty hard to put a sexist bias into statistical analysis.

At the end of the day, these researchers are probably motivated by helping women enjoy orgasm. Seems silly to criticize that, unless perhaps you think the money would be better spent on other things.

Not all research by men pertaining to women is part of some larger patriarchal conspiracy.

Who says it is?

You are still missing the point. Well, my point anyway. The researchers showed that difficulty with orgasm is genetic. Yes, why not. I am not arguing against that, no problem. What I do have a problem with is speculations of the evolutionary benefits of particular generic traits.

Something being genetic does NOT imply that it is an adaptation. Genetic trais may be beneficial in some environments, and not beneficial or even fatal in other environments. And we have lots of genetically transmitted diseases that do not have any evolutionary benefit. In some cases we can see evidence of a genetic trait having been beneficial at some point in history, but more often we cannot prove a thing.

I do not accept the equation genetic == beneficial in the evolutionary sense. That is what I am criticising here. And that has nothing to do with sex, just general reserch ethics.