3 ms·

Shouldn't premature ejaculation be viewed as an evolutionary advantage ? After all when presented with the opportunity, the male has to get in there and get the

Shouldn't premature ejaculation be viewed as an evolutionary advantage ? After all when presented with the opportunity, the male has to get in there and get the job done quickly before you get eaten by lions.

trhway 7y ago
Until you take into account the alleged role of female orgasm in upright walking species.
lordnacho 7y ago
Have you ever tried to make a baby? It can indeed be done in one go, but many couples require several before it works. Before people had a (correct) theory of pregnancy, they would not know the best time of the month, which orifice to use, and a bunch of other confounding variables. When I made my first kid we were mistaken about the best time of the cycle. As soon as I googled it, it worked.
unlinked_dll 7y ago
Evolution isn't about advantage or disadvantage but probabilities of passing on genetics. And we solved the lion problem millennia ago.
ryan_j_naughton 7y ago
That is such a shortsighted evolutionary view of sex for many reasons but two immediately come to mind: 1. Sex in humans clearly has a social role between the mating. Because they raise the child together for the first few years of the child's life, having a positive, loving relationship with each other is important. It is part of the reason that oxytocin is released during sex -- to facilitate social bonding. 2. There is emerging evidence that there is an increased chance of impregnation if the woman has an orgasm. Thus, having the guy last long enough to get her there actually increases the chance of offspring and thus survival of your genome. My broader point (and frustration with your point) is people way too often reduce evolutionary advantage to a hyper-simplistic single dimensional thing. While, yes, it all comes down to propagating your genome, when you add in social creatures living in groups, the incentives / game theory becomes so much more complicated.

trhway 7y ago

Until you take into account the alleged role of female orgasm in upright walking species.

lordnacho 7y ago

Have you ever tried to make a baby? It can indeed be done in one go, but many couples require several before it works. Before people had a (correct) theory of pregnancy, they would not know the best time of the month, which orifice to use, and a bunch of other confounding variables. When I made my first kid we were mistaken about the best time of the cycle. As soon as I googled it, it worked.

unlinked_dll 7y ago

Evolution isn't about advantage or disadvantage but probabilities of passing on genetics. And we solved the lion problem millennia ago.

ryan_j_naughton 7y ago

That is such a shortsighted evolutionary view of sex for many reasons but two immediately come to mind: 1. Sex in humans clearly has a social role between the mating. Because they raise the child together for the first few years of the child's life, having a positive, loving relationship with each other is important. It is part of the reason that oxytocin is released during sex -- to facilitate social bonding. 2. There is emerging evidence that there is an increased chance of impregnation if the woman has an orgasm. Thus, having the guy last long enough to get her there actually increases the chance of offspring and thus survival of your genome. My broader point (and frustration with your point) is people way too often reduce evolutionary advantage to a hyper-simplistic single dimensional thing. While, yes, it all comes down to propagating your genome, when you add in social creatures living in groups, the incentives / game theory becomes so much more complicated.