Content uploaded by David A Puts
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David A Puts on Jul 10, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Book Reviews 103
Do loving spouses care how many diapers they change
or who stays home with the children, or whether they
go to the ballet or the opera, or where they locate? Do
loving spouses experience conflict between their own
professional goals and those of their spouses? Might they
still be genuinely loving spouses if they do care? In my
view, the answers are yes, yes, and yes. A good marriage
need not represent a ‘union’ in which the circumstances
of justice are repealed. It may represent an intimate
partnership between autonomous individuals who do and
should have interests, goals, and aspirations that can
conflict. (p. 272)
Wertheimer’s analysis clearly demonstrates a solid
understanding of biology, psychology, law, and philos-
ophy. His approach is balanced and he takes pains
to present arguments from a variety of perspectives,
citing philosophical and evolutionary theory, legal cases,
feminist perspectives, etc. He contrasts sexual with
nonsexual issues regarding consideration of principles
of valid consent, such as sales contracts, robbery, ad-
vertising, threats of murder, medical procedures, and
euthanasia.
This is not always easy reading, as the author’s
arguments are often quite detailed, contrasting as many as
five theoretical alternatives at a time. However, following
his logic is often captivating, especially considering his
balanced approach, his open appreciation of others who
may have found flaws or omissions in his thinking, and
the sprinkling of dry but tasteful humor. For some of us,
his conclusions will appear to be self-evident, at least in
certain areas, but we will now have the benefit of his
detailed analysis. For others, this volume may encourage
a reconsideration of attitudes and biases in these often
emotional areas of human life and behavior. The book
will be useful to anyone—attorney, psychologist, psy-
chotherapist, political scientist, philosopher—who values
a comprehensive, scholarly discussion of this important
area.
REFERENCES
Plaut, S. M. (1995). Informed consent for sex between health profes-
sional and patient or client. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy,
21, 129–131.
Wertheimer, A. (1996). Exploitation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-
sity Press.
DOI:10.1007/s10508-006-9000-3
The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science
of Evolution. By Elisabeth A. Lloyd.HarvardUni-
versity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2005, 311
pp., $27.95.
Reviewed by David A. Puts, Ph.D.1
Lloyd argues that female orgasm is not an adaptation,
that it did not contribute to the reproductive success
of ancestral females, and, therefore, was not designed
to solve any particular reproductive problems faced by
ancestral females. Rather, Lloyd adopts Symons’s (1979)
hypothesis that female orgasm is like the male nipple—
non-functional and merely a developmental byproduct of
natural selection for a functional version of the trait in
the opposite sex. Males have nipples because they share
some of their development with females, in whom the trait
is an adaptation. Lloyd argues that females have orgasms
because they share some of their development with males,
in whom orgasm is an adaptation.
The book is generally well-written and accessible to
the lay reader. In its eight chapters, Lloyd systematically
reviews and critiques each of the 21 hypotheses so far
proposed for the evolution of orgasm in women. The thesis
is that various biases, including adaptationist and sexist
biases, have led to the uncritical acceptance of adaptive
explanations for female orgasm, when none is adequately
supported by evidence according to rigorous scientific
standards. This book has the merits that it will probably
encourage more research into the poorly understood
phenomenon of female orgasm, and researchers in this
area will likely be made more aware of their potential
biases. However, because of the overall polemical tone and
the sometimes narrow focus on possible shortcomings of
adaptive hypotheses, it does not serve as a comprehensive
introduction to evolutionary explanations for female
orgasm. And to those well-versed in evolutionary theory
and evolutionary explanations for female orgasm, this
book will probably be somewhat unconvincing, leaving
one with the impression that, if proponents of adaptive
explanations sometimes speak beyond their data, the
byproduct account is no more satisfying. Of course, Lloyd
would contend that these readers suffer from the same
biases as those she argues against. But at least one adaptive
hypothesis for female orgasm has reasonable support, and
Lloyd’s arguments have weaknesses, which are outlined
below.
1Neuroscience Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan 48824; e-mail: puts@msu.edu.
104 Book Reviews
HOW CAN WE RECOGNIZE AN ADAPTATION?
Perhaps the most significant problem in this book
involves defining what evidence would be required to
settle the issue of whether female orgasm is an adaptation
or a byproduct. In Chapter 1, Lloyd cites West-Eberhard’s
(1992) definition of an adaptation: a character for which
“there is some evidence that it has evolved (been modified
during its evolutionary history) in specific ways to make
it more effective in the performance of [a particular
task], and that the change has occurred due to the
increased fitness that results” (West-Eberhard, p. 13).
Most evolutionists would agree almost completely, but
many would change the word results to resulted. This
seemingly minor change can be important. Organisms
possess a particular adaptation because it contributed to
the reproductive success of their ancestors, not because
it currently contributes to reproduction. There is no point
in debating semantics—which definition of adaptation is
“correct.” But the central question of Lloyd’s book is why,
evolutionarily, females experience orgasm. And Lloyd
incorrectly assumes that an adaptive answer depends
on female orgasm contributing to current reproductive
success.
This focus on natural selection in current populations
unfortunately pervades the book. This is first seen clearly
in Chapter 1, where Lloyd summarizes what is required to
demonstrate that a trait is an adaptation: “First, it should
be shown that individual or geographic variations in a
trait have a genetic basis....Second, the trait should be
shown to influence reproductive success....[T]hird...a
mechanistic account explaining the links between the trait
and reproductive success in the wild should be elucidated.”
These are, in fact, requirements to show that natural
selection is currently operating on a character, not to
show that selection has shaped the character over the
evolutionary history of the species. For natural selection
to have shaped a trait in the past, it is indeed necessary
for there to have been genetic variation associated with
variation in the trait. And variation in the trait must have
led to variation in reproductive success. Demonstrating
either of these currently might bolster the argument
that they existed in past generations, but their current
demonstration is unnecessary.
So what is required to show that a trait is an
adaptation? This can be a difficult task because we
cannot go back in time to measure the operation of
natural selection on a trait. According to Williams (1966),
complex structural organization can suggest that a trait
is an adaptation. Evidence that it serves a presumed
function “with sufficient precision, economy, efficiency
...to rule out pure chance as an adequate explanation”
(p. 10) also helps distinguish an adaptation from a
byproduct. Essentially, an adaptation looks as though
it was designed for a particular function. And this
function must have clear benefits to reproductive success.
Lloyd discusses neither complexity nor the appearance
of functional design as evidence of adaptation. However,
Lloyd spends considerable time in Chapters 1 and 6
bringing home the important point that not all beneficial
traits are adaptations. In Chapter 1, Lloyd gives Darwin’s
example of the sutures of the mammalian skull, which
allow the skull to deform as it passes through the birth
canal. This benefit suggests that sutures are adaptations
to the problem of getting a large head through a relatively
small birth canal. However, sutures are shared with birds
and reptiles, which hatch from eggs. Thus, skull sutures
probably existed ancestrally before this benefit could be
realized, so they cannot be adaptations for this function.
On the other hand, evidence that a trait has been modified
over evolutionary history to serve a particular function can
help demonstrate that it is indeed an adaptation. For ex-
ample, the skin of female placental mammals has clearly
been modified in the formation of mammary glands and
nipples.
A final method of establishing that a trait is an
adaptation for a hypothesized function is cross-species
comparison. If an adaptive hypothesis about a trait in
one species is correct, then other species possessing
similar traits should have experienced similar adaptive
problems over their evolution. For example, a hypothesis
that hovering flight in ruby-throated hummingbirds is
an adaptation to feeding on flowers would predict other
species with hovering flight to feed on flowers. However,
this comparison can be confounded by close evolutionary
relationships. Because closely related species share traits
due simply to inheritance from a common ancestor, other
hummingbird species with hovering flight should not be
used as evidence. Instead, hummingbird species that have
lost hovering flight could be investigated to see if they
do not feed on flowers. And species in which hovering
flight has evolved independently, such as some bats and
insects, could be examined. Although Lloyd does not
describe this approach to testing adaptive hypotheses, it is
worth bearing in mind when considering the cross-species
evidence discussed below.
To review, an adaptation can be recognized if it has
a complex structure that appears to have been designed
to perform some function that increased reproductive
success during the trait’s evolution, and if there is evidence
that it has been modified over its evolution to perform this
function efficiently. Additional evidence about a trait’s
potential adaptive function can be obtained by examining
closely related species in which the trait is absent and
Book Reviews 105
distantly related species in which the trait is present to
see if they lack or share, respectively, the hypothetical
selection pressure.
HOW CAN WE RECOGNIZE A BYPRODUCT?
Although much of this book is devoted to discussing
what constitutes an adaptation, Lloyd is less explicit
about the kinds of evidence that would identify a trait
as a byproduct. Lloyd is clear about the most important
characteristic: a byproduct shares a common develop-
mental origin with an adaptation. Lloyd gives Symons’
(1979) example of the male nipple. As discussed above,
nipples are clearly adaptations in females but are probably
possessed by males only because males share some of their
development with females.
But shared development with an adaptation is not suf-
ficient evidence to conclude that a trait is a byproduct. For
example, the plumage of peahens and peacocks are devel-
opmentally related, but both are probably adaptations—
the former for avoiding predation, the latter for attracting
mates. To conclude that a trait is a byproduct, additional
evidence is needed. Whereas signs that a trait has been
modified for a function suggest an adaptation, the apparent
lack of design for efficient function indicates that the trait
may be a byproduct. However, it should be appreciated
that apparent lack of design may reflect only the present
state of knowledge, and future research may reveal a
convincing adaptive explanation. Finally, byproducts may
appear reduced, rudimentary, or vestigial.
These features are apparent in male nipples. Lloyd
notes that male nipples do not normally deliver milk
except under extraordinary hormonal conditions and thus
probably have not evolved for this function, but does
not mention the other obvious difference: males’ nipples
are smaller. Given the importance of the concept of
evolutionary byproducts in this book, it is surprising
that only the example of the male nipple is given. Let
us explore another example– the copulatory system of
leopard geckos.
As in other lizards, male leopard geckos possess
paired, bilateral copulatory organs called hemipenes
(Holmes, Putz, Crews, & Wade, 2005). Each hemipenis
is controlled by its own set of muscles, and either
hemipenis may be used during copulation. Interestingly,
adult female leopard geckos also possess hemipenes.
Female hemipenes are much smaller than males’ (less
than a tenth the volume), as are the associated muscles.
Female hemipenes do not appear to be connected with
vasa deferentia and, under normal conditions, female
hemipenes do not evert. There is no known function
for these structures in female leopard geckos. However,
female leopard geckos remain partially responsive to
androgens in adulthood, and androgen treatment increases
the size of this copulatory system as well as enabling
females to evert their hemipenes.
What lessons can we take away from these examples
of developmental byproducts? First, byproducts are devel-
opmentally related to clear adaptations in the opposite sex.
Second, byproducts do not appear to have been modified
over their evolution to provide function efficiently. Finally,
byproducts are reduced compared to the corresponding
adaptations in the opposite sex. They appear vestigial.
These facts suggest that the adaptations of one sex would
impair the sex bearing their byproducts, perhaps simply
because the adaptations would not compensate for their
costs of production and maintenance in the opposite sex.
DEFINING FEMALE ORGASM
Equipped with the ability to recognize adaptations
and byproducts, we are nearly ready to discuss Lloyd’s
analyses of evolutionary hypotheses about female orgasm.
But first we must agree on the trait that we are attempting
to explain. Here lies a problem. Lloyd defines female
orgasm by uterine contractions and other physiological
correlates to the exclusion of psychological aspects, such
as pleasurable sensations.
This definition is problematic for several reasons.
First, when women report on orgasm, they are almost cer-
tainly referring to the pleasurable, psychological aspects,
not the physiological ones. Because the psychological
aspects are the most salient to the experience of orgasm,
an evolutionary hypothesis that considers why uterine
contractions occur but does not explain the intense
pleasure will be unsatisfying. Second, considering both
physiological and psychological aspects of female orgasm
is likely to contribute to a better understanding of why
female orgasm evolved. This would be true if female
orgasm was a byproduct and both aspects appeared
vestigial. It would also be true if female orgasm was an
adaptation. Indeed, psychological and physiological as-
pects might have different functions. Consider the case of
male orgasm. The physiological aspect of male orgasm—
ejaculation—has the clear function of transmitting sperm
to the female’s reproductive tract. The pleasurable sen-
sations associated with male orgasm, on the other hand,
are unnecessary for transmitting sperm but may function
to reinforce copulatory behavior. Because Lloyd does not
consider the psychological aspect of orgasm, she misses
this distinction, asserting that “orgasm and ejaculation are
strongly selected in men...as a sperm-delivery system”
106 Book Reviews
(p. 110). Finally, the exclusion of the psychological
aspects of female orgasm is problematic because some
of the adaptive hypotheses that Lloyd criticizes depend
on them, as we shall see.
WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE
One of the reasons that so many researchers have
proposed adaptive hypotheses for female orgasm is
probably that the intense pleasure seems likely to have
affected copulatory patterns over human evolution. And
because copulation is tied to reproduction, it would appear
that orgasm must have influenced female reproductive
success. Even assuming heritability of female orgasm
over human evolution, this putative connection between
female orgasm and reproductive success does not mean
that female orgasm is an adaptation. Recall that beneficial
traits are not rightly considered adaptations unless there
is evidence that they have been modified over their evo-
lution for efficiency of function. Moreover, a connection
between female orgasm and reproductive success does
not imply that the former increased the latter. If female
orgasm is a byproduct of male orgasm, it is possible that
orgasm decreased reproductive success in females.
Nevertheless, Lloyd questions the apparent connec-
tion between orgasm and reproductive success in females.
Of course, a current connection between female orgasm
and reproductive success is unnecessary for female or-
gasm to be an adaptation. But if female orgasm is an
adaptation, it must have increased reproduction during
its evolution. Whereas male orgasm affects reproductive
success through its association with copulation, Lloyd
contends that female orgasm is only tenuously related
to sexual intercourse. She uses three lines of evidence
to make this point: First, most women report not having
orgasms with every act of sexual intercourse. Second,
women vary considerably in their reported rates of
orgasm, with a small percentage reporting never having
had an orgasm from intercourse. Finally, masturbation in
women, and both masturbation and homosexual interac-
tions in non-human primate females, appear more likely to
elicit orgasm than does heterosexual intercourse. In sum,
copulation only sometimes leads to orgasm, and other
behaviors may be at least as effective as copulation at
eliciting orgasm.
The fact that masturbation and other non-copulatory
sexual behaviors are effective at eliciting female orgasm
might suggest that female orgasm is not an adaptive
response to copulation. However, as noted above, male
orgasm is almost certainly an adaptive response to copu-
lation. And orgasms from masturbation and other sources
are at least as common in males as they are in females.
It seems plausible that, in both sexes, orgasm has been
favored as a response to particular sexual behaviors, but
the mechanisms that have evolved for these functions can
be triggered by other stimuli. Similarly, the rods and cones
of the retina have been selected for their responsiveness to
light, yet they can be stimulated by pressure from a finger
on a closed eyelid, a response for which they were not
selected.
What about the fact that copulation only sometimes
causes female orgasm? This would be problematic if adap-
tive hypotheses assumed female orgasm was a response
to copulation generally. It would appear inefficient. But
it is not a difficulty if female orgasm is hypothesized to
be an adaptive response to intercourse only in certain
contexts. This could explain why orgasm does not al-
ways accompany copulation in females; females do not
always copulate under the same conditions. It could also
explain some between-female variation in orgasm rates—
females differ in their sexual experiences. It seems that
female orgasm could have affected reproductive success
through its relationship with heterosexual intercourse. But
a convincing evolutionary hypothesis must explain the
irregularity with which sexual intercourse elicits female
orgasm. Several evolutionary hypotheses for female or-
gasm make predictions regarding these irregularities. Let
us consider the predictions pair-bond, sperm competition,
and byproduct hypotheses.
Pair-bond hypotheses (Chapter 3) postulate that
social bonds between males and females have been
adaptive and that female orgasm has helped cement
these bonds. Thus, pair-bond hypotheses predict that
female orgasm will be more common from within-pair
copulations than from extra-pair copulations. The sperm
competition hypothesis (Chapter 7) makes a different set
of predictions. Sperm competition occurs when the sperm
of different males compete to fertilize the eggs of a single
female. Although Lloyd questions this, sperm competition
has probably imposed significant selection on humans
over their evolution. Sperm competition favors large testes
and rapid evolution of proteins associated with ejaculate
production, both of which are greater in humans than in
gorillas, in which sperm competition is low. Rates of extra-
pair sex indicate moderate sperm competition, as do rates
of extra-pair paternity, which are only around 2% across
human populations but 10% in traditional populations
(Simmons, Firman, Rhodes, & Peters, 2004). Because
sperm competition occurs when multiple males mate with
the same female, it can select for female mechanisms
that influence the probability of fertilization by particular
males. According to the sperm competition hypothesis,
female orgasm is an adaptation to promote conception
Book Reviews 107
from males of high genetic quality (Baker & Bellis, 1993;
Smith, 1984; Thornhill, Gangestad, & Comer, 1995). A
variety of research suggests that females may recruit
genes outside of their long-term mateships (Gangestad
& Simpson, 2000). The sperm-competition hypothesis
thus predicts that female orgasm is likelier not only from
intercourse with good-genes males, but also during extra-
pair copulation. Finally, the byproduct hypothesis predicts
no relationship between partner type and orgasm.
Regrettably, Lloyd misses the opportunity to com-
pare these competing hypotheses in relation to this
critical set of predictions. In fact, evidence regarding
these predictions best supports the sperm competition
hypothesis. Baker and Bellis (1993) presented evidence
that females were more likely to experience orgasms
from extra-pair copulation than from intra-pair copulation
(Fig. 7, p. 902), evidence that Lloyd does not discuss in
her consideration of this study. Thornhill et al. (1995)
also find support for the sperm competition hypothesis.
They examined orgasm rates of women in 86 heterosexual
couples in relation to a composite measure of the overall
bilateral symmetry of their male partners. Because bodily
symmetry is a putative marker of genetic quality, Thornhill
et al. predicted (and found) higher rates of orgasm in
females mated to symmetrical men. Lloyd criticized
this study because it “involved no extra-pair matings
whatsoever, and thus no sperm competition” (p. 211).
However, this is not problematic for the sperm competition
hypothesis. The sperm competition hypothesis predicts
increased rates of orgasm with good-genes males; it does
not require these males to be extra-pair males. According
to this hypothesis, rates of female orgasm should be higher
for extra-pair than for intra-pair copulation only because
females, when they are sexually unfaithful, tend to obtain
extra-pair sex from good genes males.
The major criticism leveled by Lloyd against the
sperm competition hypothesis, however, regards one of
the mechanisms by which female orgasm putatively
promotes fertilization by good genes males. According
to the sperm-competition hypothesis, the uterine contrac-
tions associated with orgasm capture sperm. Fox, Wolff,
and Baker (1970) measured a drop in uterine pressure
following copulatory orgasm. This pressure drop may be
caused by oxytocin release. Oxytocin levels rise following
orgasm (Blaicher et al., 1999) and Wildt, Kissler, Licht,
and Becker (1998) showed that treatment with this
hormone caused uterine contractions lowered uterine
pressure and rapid movement of a semen-like substance
into the uterus. Uterine contractions also transport sperm
in other mammals, including rats, dogs, and cows (Singer,
1973). And, in humans, Baker and Bellis (1993) found
that female orgasms within 1 min before and 45 min after
ejaculation were associated with higher sperm retention
than was no orgasm or orgasms at other times.
Lloyd noted that two studies failed to find movement
of semen-like substances through the cervix following
orgasm. However, both studies used a cap placed over
the cervix, which Fox et al. (1970) contended may have
prevented flow, one study used a fluid more viscous than
semen, and the other involved masturbatory orgasms,
which Singer and Singer (1972) argued led to fewer uter-
ine contractions. Lloyd also points out that uterine con-
tractions occur constantly, and oxytocin may be released
during sexual simulation without orgasm, so orgasm may
be unnecessary for sperm-capturing uterine contractions.
But, as discussed above, both uterine contractions and
oxytocin release have been found to increase following or-
gasm, as have uterine suction and sperm retention. Finally,
Lloyd questioned the Baker and Bellis (1993) study on
statistical grounds, pointing out such potential drawbacks
as small, non-normal samples, unjustified use of different
subsample sizes, and inappropriate statistical tests. Vary-
ing subsample sizes probably reflect incomplete responses
by some subjects (e.g., seven couples were not willing to
collect sperm flow-backs), and Baker and Bellis justified
their statistics in a previous paper. Although many of
Lloyd’s points may be valid, there is at least very sugges-
tive evidence that female orgasm increases sperm uptake.
Evidence regarding the so-called physiological
aspects of female orgasm need not stand on its own. What
about the psychological aspects? An adaptive hypothesis
would posit that pleasurable sensations function to
reward the behavior that caused them. Smith (1984)
postulated that the psychological aspects of orgasm cause
females to bond with the males with whom they had
orgasm. Thornhill et al. (1995) found no evidence that
women’s orgasm rates with their male partner affected
their reported love for or commitment to him. However,
the pleasurable feeling of orgasm may increase females’
likelihood of copulating again with the same male, even
if it does not increase emotional commitment to him.
And given that a single act of unprotected intercourse,
even at peak fertility in the cycle, is unlikely to result
in fertilization, this repeated copulation would seem to
facilitate fertilization by particular males, thus supporting
the sperm competition hypothesis.
In Chapter 5, Lloyd correctly posits that, “If the
byproduct account is right, then those species in which the
sexual organs and tissues are most intensely selected in
the males would also be expected to have highly sexual—
and perhaps orgasmic—females” (p. 130). But in which
species will males be, as Lloyd puts it, “highly sexed”?
Lloyd presents evidence for female orgasm in stumptail,
rhesus, and Japanese macaques, and in chimpanzees
108 Book Reviews
and bonobos—all species with multi-male groups where
sperm competition is expected to be high and thus males
are expected to be highly sexual. But, importantly, the
sperm competition hypothesis makes the same predictions
about the distribution of female orgasm across species.
For example, the sperm competition hypothesis predicts
the absence of female orgasm in gorillas, where sperm
competition is essentially nonexistent, because there has
been no selection for females to influence fertilization
by particular males. And the byproduct hypothesis makes
this prediction because there has been no selection on
male gorillas to produce frequent or large ejaculates. Thus,
the cross-species evidence that Lloyd presents in support
of the byproduct hypothesis is equally supportive of the
sperm-competition hypothesis.
SUMMARY
Of the evolutionary hypotheses proposed thus far,
the sperm competition hypothesis best explains both the
physiological and the psychological aspects of female or-
gasm, as well as predicting its variability and cross-species
distribution. In general, female orgasm seems like an
adaptation. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that female
orgasm has been designed for the function of sire choice
in species where the sperm of multiple males compete for
fertilization in a single female, although this interpretation
should be made tentatively at present. One might construe
the variability of orgasm within and between females as
an indication that orgasm is reduced in females—evidence
that it is a byproduct of selection for orgasm in males. But
this would be like predicting that only some males would
have nipples, or that males would have nipples only some
of the time. If anything, female orgasm appears elaborated
by selection, modified in its pattern of response to
sociosexual stimuli and in its physiological manifestation.
Many of Lloyd’s criticisms may be valid, but no
study is perfect, and too many would have to be wrong for
female orgasm not to look like an adaptation. Lloyd claims
that these studies are flawed because they were motivated
by various biases, including sexism and adaptationism.
It strikes the reader that the accusation of sexism may
be more of a defensive response to past accusations
(discussed in Chapter 5) that the viewpoint espoused in
this book is antifeminist. Lloyd is probably right that the
concept of adaptation is sometimes used capriciously, de-
spite Williams’ (1966) admonition that it is “a special and
onerous concept that should be used only where it is really
necessary” (p. 4). However, no sexist views or adapta-
tionist agendas have prevented researchers from thinking
that nipples in human males and hemipenes in leopard
gecko females are truly byproducts. In contrast, female
orgasm simply has the appearance of an adaptation. It
has the complexity that is the hallmark of an adaptation.
Williams (1966) noted that biologists recognized the
lateral line system of fishes as an adaptation before they
knew its function. After several decades of research on
female orgasm, we may be closing in on its function.
REFERENCES
Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. (1993). Human sperm competition:
Ejaculate manipulation by female and a function for the female
orgasm. Animal Behaviour,46, 887–909.
Blaicher, W., Gruber, D., Biegelmayer, C., Blaicher, A. M., Knogler, W.,
& Huber, J. C. (1999). The role of oxytocin in relation to female
sexual arousal. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation,47, 125–
126.
Fox, C. A., Wolff, H. S., & Baker, J. A. (1970). Measurement of intra-
vaginal and intra-uterine pressures during human coitus by radio-
telemetry. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility,24, 243–251.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). On the evolutionary
psychology of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,23, 573–587.
Holmes, M. M., Putz, O., Crews, D., & Wade, J. (2005). Normally
occurring intersexuality and testosterone induced plasticity in
the copulatory system of adult leopard geckos. Hormones and
Behavior,47, 439–445.
Simmons, L. W., Firman, R. C., Rhodes, G., & Peters, M. (2004).
Human sperm competition: Testis size, sperm production and
rates of extrapair copulations. Animal Behaviour,68, 297–
302.
Singer, I. (1973). The goal of human sexuality. New York: W. W. Norton.
Singer, J., & Singer, I. (1972). Types of female orgasm. Journal of Sex
Research,8, 255–267.
Smith, R. L. (1984). Human sperm competition. In R. L. Smith (Ed.),
Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems (pp.
601–660). London: Academic Press.
Thornhill, R., Gangestad, S. W., & Comer, R. (1995). Human female
orgasm and mate fluctuating asymmetry. Animal Behaviour,50,
1601–1615.
Wildt, L., Kissler, S., Licht, P., & Becker, W. (1998). Sperm transport in
the human female genital tract and its modulation by oxytocin as
assessed by hysterosalpingoscintigraphy, hysterotonography, elec-
trohysterography and Doppler sonography. Human Reproduction
Update,4, 655–666.
Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
