Evidence to Suggest that Copulatory Vocalizations in Women Are Not a Reflexive Consequence of Orgasm

Abstract

The current studies were conducted in order to investigate the phenomenon of copulatory vocalizations and their relationship to orgasm in women. Data were collected from 71 sexually active heterosexual women (M age = 21.68 years ± .52) recruited from the local community through opportunity sampling. The studies revealed that orgasm was most frequently reported by women following self-manipulation of the clitoris, manipulation by the partner, oral sex delivered to the woman by a man, and least frequently during vaginal penetration. More detailed examination of responses during intercourse revealed that, while female orgasms were most commonly experienced during foreplay, copulatory vocalizations were reported to be made most often before and simultaneously with male ejaculation. These data together clearly demonstrate a dissociation of the timing of women experiencing orgasm and making copulatory vocalizations and indicate that there is at least an element of these responses that are under conscious control, providing women with an opportunity to manipulate male behavior to their advantage.

Full text

ORIGINAL PAPER
Evidence to Suggest that Copulatory Vocalizations in Women
Are Not a Reflexive Consequence of Orgasm
Gayle Brewer •Colin A. Hendrie
Received: 16 August 2009 / Revised: 9 April 2010 / Accepted: 21 April 2010 / Published online: 18 May 2010
ÓSpringer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract The current studies were conducted in order to
investigate the phenomenon of copulatory vocalizations and
their relationship to orgasm in women. Data were collected
from 71 sexually active heterosexual women (M age =21.68
years ±.52) recruited from the local community through
opportunity sampling. The studies revealed that orgasm was
most frequently reported by women following self-manipu-
lation of the clitoris, manipulation by the partner, oral sex
delivered to the woman by a man, and least frequently during
vaginal penetration. More detailed examination of responses
during intercourse revealed that, while female orgasms were
most commonly experienced during foreplay, copulatory
vocalizations were reported to be made most often before and
simultaneously with male ejaculation. These data together
clearly demonstrate a dissociation of the timing of women
experiencing orgasm and making copulatory vocalizations
and indicate that there is at least an element of these responses
that are under conscious control, providing women with an
opportunity to manipulate male behavior to their advantage.
Keywords Orgasm Copulatory vocalization 
Sexual behavior Evolution
Introduction
During sexual activity, it is most commonly female primates
that make vocalizations (Hauser, 1996; Pradhan, Engelhardt,
van Schaik, & Maestripieri, 2006; Semple, 2001). Such vocal-
izations may be emitted during the solicitation, copulatory
or post ejaculatory phases (Dixson, 1998; Gouzoules, Gust,
Donaghey, & St. Andre, 1998; Maestripieri & Roney, 2005).
The role of these vocalizations remains enigmatic; however,
the most parsimonious view is that their immediate function is
simply to advertise that sexual activity is occurring within
close proximity (e.g., Pradhan et al., 2006).The effects of these
advertisements are manifold, and may include the synchro-
nizing of male and female orgasm (Hamilton & Arrowood,
1978), the strengthening of the pair bond (Hamilton & Arro-
wood, 1978), inciting male-male competition, and increasing
the chances of mating with a dominant male (Cox & LeBoeuf,
1977) or multi-matings, increasing the level of sperm com-
petition and reducing the risk of infanticide through uncer-
tainty of paternity (O’Connell & Cowlishaw, 1994). Finally,
these vocalizations may justbe the result of phylogenticinertia
(Henzi, 1996), reflecting the internal state resultant upon
female orgasm that has no impact on the behavior of others
(Hamilton & Arrowood, 1978).
Within the context of our own species, there could have
been a number of potential advantages to ancestral females
mating with multiple males. These may include the protection
from infanticide gained from uncertainty of paternity and
augmented by cryptic ovulation (e.g., Palombit, 2000). There
is also the increased physical pleasure associated with sus-
tained clitoral stimulation (Hrdy, 1981). However, mating
with multiple males would only have been adaptive for female
pre-hominids capable of caring for offspring by themselves.
Where paternity is not certain, support from a given male
is concomitantly reduced (Tooby & Devore, 1987), thereby
increasing the risk of injury or fatality in a species so vulner-
able to cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD) and that has such a
long period of neonatal helplessness.
G. Brewer (&)
School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire,
Preston, Lancashire PR1 2HE, England
e-mail: gbrewer@uclan.ac.uk
C. A. Hendrie
Institute of Psychological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds,
West Yorkshire, England
123
Arch Sex Behav (2011) 40:559–564
DOI 10.1007/s10508-010-9632-1

Early hominids further had to contend with the difficulties
resultant upon the changes in hip architecture (effectively a
narrowing) required to achieve full bipedal locomotion (Ja-
anusson, 1991;Lovejoy,1988). This also affected the orga-
nization of female genitalia, perhaps reducing the likelihood
that women would achieve orgasm through vaginal penetra-
tion because the stimulation of the appropriate areas during
intercourse became only indirect. It is possible to hypothesize
that without the risk of CPD, the dominant female strategy
would have been to solicit sex from several males as they
sought to prolong stimulation. However, with this risk, there
was strong pressure to form relationships with asingle male. In
this circumstance, female orgasm could still have been
achieved by the partner male increasing his copulatory effort
(Fisher, 1973). Consequently, although evidence from non-
human primates suggests that female orgasm did not evolve to
cement the pairbond per se, it may have become sequestered to
serve this function in modern humans (for further information
about the hypothesized evolution and function of female
orgasm, see Garver-Apgar, Gangestad, Thornhill, Miller, &
Olp, 2006; Puts & Dawood, 2006; Thornhill, Gangestad, &
Comer, 1995).
With regard to the nature of the vocalizations themselves, it
is clear that the transition from rapid, labored breathing to
distinctive often loud vocalizations still serve a communica-
tory function (Hamilton & Arrowood, 1978). Therefore, in
view of the relative paucity of data in humans, the current
studies were conducted in order to examine the nature of
human copulatory vocalizations in more detail. The research
was conducted using female self-reports of the timing and
frequency of their copulatory vocalizations and the context in
which they were made.
Method
Participants
A total of 20 women participated in Phase 1 of the study
(questionnaire development and piloting). A total of 71
sexually active heterosexual women that had previously
experienced an orgasm completed Phase 2, which involved
completing the finalized questionnaire. Participants were
between 18 and 48 years (M =21.68 ±.52). Of these, 49
were in what they described as a committed relationship with
a mean duration of 20.92 months (range, 1–264).
Procedure
Informal exploratory discussions were held with a group of
five female participants. Women were prompted to discuss the
possible frequency with which women have orgasms, timing
relative to partner orgasm, the sexual activities during which
they occur, sounds women make during sex, and the effect
of noise making on partner, etc. Following these discussions,
22 questions were developed relating to women’s personal
experienceof orgasm and copulatory vocalizations. A second
sample of five women then completed the prototype ques-
tionnaireand were invited to make commentson each question
in order to facilitate further development. Lastly, a structured
questionnaire using a variety of response methods, including
visual analogue scales, was then created and shown to two
further pilot samples. The final questionnaire was distributed
to 71 women. Participants for both phases were recruited from
the local community through opportunity sampling.
Measures
Autobiographical Questions
Questions were about age, relationship status, and sexual history
(e.g., how many sexual partners have you had?).
Methods by Which Orgasm is Achieved
Questions to do with the overall frequency of orgasm, the
methods by which orgasm were achieved (self-masturbation
when alone, masturbation by partner, oral sex delivered by the
partner, manual stimulation by self during intercourse, manual
stimulation by partner during intercourse, penetration itself,
and‘‘other’’) answered using percentage estimates.
When Orgasm was Achieved
Estimates of the incidence of orgasm achieved during the
different stages of sexual activity with a partner (i.e. during
foreplay, during intercourse before your partner orgasms,
during intercourse at the same time as your partner orgasms,
during intercourse after your partner orgasms, during after-
play) answered using percentage estimates.
Frequency of Copulatory Vocalizations
Questions to do with how often participants reported making a
variety of noises (i.e., silence, moan/groan, scream/shriek/
squeal, words [e.g., partner’s name,‘‘yes’’, etc.], instructional
commands [e.g., ‘‘more’’]) during sex, measured on 10cm
visual analogue scales (i.e.,‘‘never’’on the left hand extreme,
‘‘always’’ at the other).
Intensity of Copulatory Vocalizations
Questions to do with intensity of vocalizations (silence, moan/
groan, scream/shriek/squeal, words [e.g., partner’s name, ‘‘yes’’,
560 Arch Sex Behav (2011) 40:559–564
123

etc.] and instructional commands [e.g., ‘‘more’’]) during various
stages of a copulatory bout, answered using a 10-point scale.
Use of Copulatory Vocalizations
Questions to do with how often noises were made during sex
even when they knew they were not going to orgasm were
recorded (percentage frequency), whether copulatory vocal-
izations were deliberately used to ‘‘speed things up’’ (i.e.,
encourage their partner’s climax and thus terminate inter-
course), answered as a‘‘yes’’ or‘‘no’’.
Reasons for Tactical Use of Copulatory Vocalizations
Questions to do with the female’s perception of the effect that
their copulatory vocalizations had on their sexual partner (e.g.,
boost their ego, hasten partner’s ejaculation), answered on a
10 cm visual analogue scale. Questions to do with possible
reasons (discomfort/pain, time limitations, boredom, fatigue,
and‘‘other’’) for the use of thesevocalizationsto terminate their
partner’s copulatory effort, rated on a 10-point scale.
Consequences of Intercourse
Questions to do with effect of intercourse on immediate
appetite for further sexual activity and how intercourse made
the participant feel were recorded on a 10 cm visual analogue
scale. Responses to questions to do with the importance of the
participant having an orgasm as a result of sexual activity with
a partner and the importance of the partner having an orgasm
were also recorded in this way (i.e., 10 cm visual analogue
scale) as was their rating of the likelihood of remaining in a
relationship where their partner failed to bring them to orgasm
but was otherwise completely satisfactory.
Finally, participants were asked to provide open-ended
additional comments which were used to assist interpretation
of the data.
Results
Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA)
with orthogonal contrasts to perform pairwise comparisons.
Further correlational analyses were conducted using Pear-
son’s r. Figure 1shows the percentage of women who
reported experiencing orgasm when engaged in a variety of
sexual activities. One hundred percent of women sampled
reported experiencing orgasm. However, not all methods
were universally employed, i.e., a substantial number of
women reported that they or their partner did not manually
stimulate them whilst they were being penetrated and reports
of ‘‘other’’were too low to be analyzed. ANOVA reveale d a
significant main effect of the frequency of orgasm resulting
from a variety of methods, F(3, 210) =4.20, p=.007. These
were self masturbat ion (M =58.92 ±4.86), masturbation by
the partner (M =61.11 ±3.92), oral sex delivered by the
partner (M =55.53 ±4.16), and penetration (M =42.22 ±
4.09). Planned comparisons revealed no significant differ-
ence between the frequency of orgasm resulting from self or
partner masturbation, self masturbation or oral sex, or
between partner masturbation and oral sex. Significant dif-
ferences were, however, found between the frequency of
orgasm resulting from self masturbation compared to pene-
tration, F(1, 70) =5.85, p=.018, partner masturbation com-
pared to penetration, F(1, 70) =9.99, p=.002, and oral sex
compared to penetration, F(1, 70) =4.20, p=.03.
ANOVA further revealed a significant main effect of the
timing of female orgasm during sexual activity with a partner,
F(4, 272) =14.02, p\.001. These data are shown in Table 1.
Planned comparisons revealed significantdifferences between
the percentageof female orgasms reported during foreplay and
during intercourse before a partner’s orgasm, F(1, 68) =4.71,
p=.033, foreplay and during intercourse at the same time as a
partner’s orgasm, F(1, 68) =30.95, p\.001, foreplay and
during intercourse after a partner’s orgasm, F(1, 68) =22.75,
p\.001, foreplay and during afterplay, F(1, 68) =46.39, p\
.001.
Significant differences were also revealed between the
percentage of orgasms reported during intercourse before a
partner’s orgasm and during intercourse at the same time as a
partner’sorgasm, F(1, 68) =9.95, p\.002, during intercourse
before a partner’s orgasm and during intercourse after a part-
ner’s orgasm, F(1, 68) =5.07,p=.028, and during intercourse
before a partner’s orgasm and afterplay, F(1, 68) =11.34,
p=.001. No significant differences were found between
the percentage of orgasm reported to be achieved during
Fig. 1 Frequency of orgasm achieved through various methods. Data
are expressed as means ±SEM.
1
p\.05 vs. self,
2
p\.05 vs. partner,
3
p\.05 vs. oral
Arch Sex Behav (2011) 40:559–564 561
123

intercourse at the same time as the partner’s orgasm and
intercourse after a partner’s orgasm, during intercourse at the
same time as the partner’s orgasm and afterplay, and inter-
course after the partner’s orgasm and afterplay.
ANOVA also revealed a significant maineffect of timing of
vocalization, F(4, 272) =30.52, p\.001. These effects were
found to be due to significant differences between vocaliza-
tions made during foreplay and vocalizations made during
intercourse before their partner’s orgasm, F(1, 68) =12.89,
p\.001, vocalizations made during intercourse after their
partner’s orgasm, F(1, 68) =13.81, p\.001, and vocaliza-
tions made during afterplay, F(1, 68) =38.92, p\.001. There
were also differences between vocalizations made during
intercourse before their partner’s orgasm and during inter-
course after their partner’s orgasm, F(1, 68) =49.28, p\.001,
and during afterplay, F(1, 68) =75.15, p\.001. Further effects
were due to differences between vocalizations made during
intercourse at the same time as their partner’s orgasm and dur-
ing intercourse after their partner’s orgasm, F(1, 68) =31.07,
p\.001, and during afterplay, F(1, 68) =43.06, p\.001.
Finally, differences were revealed between vocalizations made
during sex after their partner’s orgasm and vocalizations made
during afterplay, F(1, 68) =6.49, p\.05. No other compari-
sons/contrasts were significant.
These analyses together indicate that there is a different
pattern of reported incidence of orgasm and vocalization.
Therefore, a series of correlations were performed, which are
shown in Table 2. Briefly, these analyses further demonstrate
the asynchrony between orgasm and vocalization during
actual intercourse, although they were correlated during fore-
and afterplay. These observations were further supported by
responses to the question ‘‘what percentage of time do you
make noise during sex, even when you are not going to have
an orgasm?’’ where 25.3% of females reported making these
noises when they were not going to orgasm over 90% of the
time, 56.2% over 70% of the time, and 79.1% over 50% of the
time.
With regard to the reasons females gave for making cop-
ulatory vocalization, 66% reported using these to speed up
their partner’s ejaculation. This was done to relieve dis-
comfort/pain, boredom, and fatigue in equal proportion, as
well as because of time limitations. Importantly, 92% of
participants felt very strongly that these vocalizations boos-
ted their partner’s self-esteem and 87% reported using them
for this purpose. To further emphasize the secondary nature
of a female’s orgasm in their motivation towards engaging in
sexual intercourse, 68% of females responded positively (i.e.,
[5 cm approximate mid point on the 10cm visual analogue
Table 1 Frequency of reported orgasm and copulatory vocalization during various stages of sexual intercourse
Foreplay Intercourse before
partner’s orgasm
Intercourse at same time
as partner’s orgasm
Intercourse after
partner’s orgasm
Afterplay
Orgasm M ?SEM 36.55 ?3.13 24.86 ?3.10
a
13.20 ?1.96
a,b
14.83 ?2.38
a,b
10.58 ?1.98
a,b
Vocalization M ?SEM 4.80 ?.24 5.72 ?.27
a
5.41 ?.34
a
3.54 ?.30
a,b,c
2.67 ?.26
a,b,c,d
a
p\.05 vs foreplay
b
p\.05 vs intercourse before partner’s orgasm
c
p\.05 vs intercourse at the same time as partner’s orgasm
d
p\.05 vs intercourse after partner’s orgasm
Table 2 Correlations between reported timings of women’s orgasm and vocalization
Vocalization during
Foreplay Intercourse before
partner’s orgasm
Intercourse at same time
as partner’s orgasm
Intercourse after
partner’s orgasm
Afterplay
Orgasm during Foreplay .39* .11 .04 -.05 .05
Intercourse before partner’s
orgasm
-.18 -.15 -.10 -.20 -.26*
Intercourse at same time as
partner’s orgasm
-.08 -.01 .07 .20 -.15
Intercourse after partner’s
orgasm
-.13 .08 .13 .21 .05
Afterplay -.10 -.03 -.12 -.05 .42*
*p\.05
562 Arch Sex Behav (2011) 40:559–564
123

scale used) to the question asking whether they would stay
with an otherwise satisfactory partner, even if they never
reached orgasm with them.
Discussion
There have been several studies examining the physiological
and psychological effects of female orgasm; however, there
have been very few detailed studies concerned with the precise
role of copulatory vocalizations in humans. The currentstudies
were conducted in view of this. Findings were that all women
in this study made copulatory vocalizations and that at least
some of these were under conscious control.
One hundred percent of females sampled had experienced
orgasm. However, these orgasms were not equally distributed
across all sexual practices reported. Orgasm was most fre-
quently experienced as the result of self manipulation,
manipulation by the partner, oral sex delivered by the male to
the female, and least often experienced as the consequence of
vaginal penetration per se. These data, therefore, indicate that
clitoral stimulation is of primary importance in this context.
Within sexual encounters themselves, females reported
experiencing orgasm most frequently during foreplay and to a
lesser extent during intercourse prior to male ejaculation, with
the incidence decreasing still further at the point of male
orgasm and after this event. High levels of vocalization were
also seen during foreplay. In direct contrast with the pattern
seen for the incidence of orgasm, the intensity of vocalizations
increased prior to the male orgasm and coincident with this.
Once male orgasm had been achieved, however, lower levels
of female vocalization were reported.
Together, these data clearly illustrate that human female
orgasm and copulatory vocalizations are dissociated during
sexual intercourse. This indicates that at least some of these
vocalizations are under conscious rather than unconscious
control, giving rise to the possibility that copulatory vocal-
izations in women fall into one of at least three categories.
These are reflexive, honestor dishonest signals of their state of
arousal. To reinforce the point concerning conscious control,
nearly 80% of females reported making copulatory vocaliza-
tions even when they knew they were not going to orgasm
themselves. As such, the expression of these vocalizations can
and probably is used to manipulate the behavior of the partner
and in particular to influence the timing of his orgasm.
This manoeuvring of male behavior not only ensures the
delivery of his ejaculate, but may also serve to end male cop-
ulatory effort under circumstances when the female is, for
example, suffering discomfort or pain, boredom, fatigue, or
simply does not have enough time for the encounter to last
longer. Females appear to be fully conscious of the positive
effects that their copulatory vocalizations have on male self-
esteem and a very high percentage reported using them for this
purpose.
Further advantages of the female being able to manipulate
the presence/absence/timing of the male orgasm may include
the reduction of her risk of incurring physical damage from
roughness,abrasion, and ensuing infection. One of the effects
of female copulatory vocalizations may be to promote male
self-esteem, which may strengthen the pairbond, decreases the
risk of emotional infidelity and abandonment, resulting in
continued access to resources and protection.
These data were remarkably consistent with findings
reported in non-human primates, where, for example, in Bar-
bary macaques (Macaca sylvanus) the likelihood of male
ejaculation is related to the intensity and speed of female
vocalizations during copulation (Todt, Hammerschmidt, An-
sorge, & Fischer, 1995; Todt & Pohl, 1984) and this appears to
be independent of the male’s copulatory effort (Pfefferle,
Brauch, Heistermann, Hodges, & Fischer, 2008). These data
were consistent with the proposal that male ejaculation is
influenced by female copulatory vocalizations rather than vice
versa and points towards the evolutionary origin of human
female vocalizations in the context in our polygynandrous
‘‘past’’ rather than our pseudo-monogamous present (Pradhan
et al., 2006).
In conclusion, current findings clearly demonstrate that at
least one component of female copulatory vocalizations is not
a reflexive consequence of orgasm which gives women the
important advantage of being able to manipulate male ejacu-
latory behavior.
References
Cox, C. R., & LeBoeuf, B. J. (1977). Female incitation of male
competition: A mechanism in sexual selection. American Natu-
ralist, 111, 317–335.
Dixson, A. F. (1998). Primate sexuality: Comparative studies of the
prosimians, monkeys, apes, and humans. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Fisher, S. (1973). The female orgasm: Psychology, physiology, fantasy.
New York: Basic Books.
Garver-Apgar, C. E., Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R. D., Miller, R. D., &
Olp, J. J. (2006). Major histocompatibility complex alleles, sexual
responsivity, and unfaithfulness in romantic couples. Psycholog-
ical Science, 17, 830–835.
Gouzoules, H., Gust, D. A., Donaghey, B., & St. Andre, E. (1998). Estrus
vocalizations in two primate species (Cercocebus torquatus atys
and Macaca nemestrina): Evidence for an effect of intrasexual
competition. Evolution of Communication, 2, 189–215.
Hamilton, W. J., & Arrowood, P. C. (1978). Copulatory vocalizations of
chacma baboons (Papio ursinus), gibbons (Hylobates hoolock) and
humans. Science, 200, 1405–1409.
Hauser, M. D. (1996). The evolution of communication. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Henzi, S. P. (1996). Copulation calls and paternity in chacma baboons.
Animal Behaviour, 51, 233–234.
Hrdy, S. B. (1981). The woman that never evolved. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Arch Sex Behav (2011) 40:559–564 563
123

Jaanusson, V. (1991). Morphological changes leading to hominid biped-
alism. Lethaia, 24, 443–457.
Lovejoy, C. O. (1988). Evolution of human walking. Scientific Ameri-
can, 259, 118–125.
Maestripieri, D., & Roney, J. R. (2005). Primate copulation calls and
postcopulatory female choice. Behavioral Ecology, 16, 106–113.
O’Connell, S. M., & Cowlishaw, G. (1994). Infanticide avoidance,
sperm competition and mate choice: The function of copulation
calls in female baboons. Animal Behaviour, 48, 687–694.
Palombit, R. A. (2000). Infanticide and the evolution of male-female
bonds in animals. In C. P. van Schaik & C. H. Janson (Eds.),
Infanticide by males and its implications (pp. 239–268). Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pfefferle, D., Brauch, K., Heistermann, M., Hodges, J. K., & Fischer, J.
(2008). Female Barbary macaque (Macaca sylvanus) copulation
calls do not reveal the fertile phase but influence mating outcome.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275, 571–
578.
Pradhan, G. R., Engelhardt, A., van Schaik, C. P., & Maestripieri, D.
(2006). The evolution of female competition calls in primates: A
review and a new model. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology,
59, 333–343.
Puts, D. A., & Dawood, K. (2006). The evolution of female orgasm:
Adaptation or byproduct? Twin Research and Human Genetics, 9,
467–472.
Semple, S. (2001). Individuality and male discrimination of female cop-
ulation calls in the yellow baboon. Animal Behaviour, 61, 1023–
1028.
Thornhill, R., Gangestad, S. W., & Comer, R. (1995). Human female
orgasm and mate fluctuating asymmetry. Animal Behaviour, 50,
1601–1615.
Todt, D., Hammerschmidt, K., Ansorge, V., & Fischer, J. (1995). The
vocal behavior of Barbary macaques: Call features and their per-
formance in infants and adults. In E. Zimmermann, J. D. Newman,
& U. Jurgens (Eds.), Current topics in primate vocal communica-
tion (pp. 141–160). New York: Plenum Press.
Todt, D., & Pohl, R. (1984). Communicative strategies in estrous
Barbary ape females (Macaca sylvanus) during copulation behav-
iour: Advertising, triggering, affiliating. Verhandlungen der De-
utschen Zoologischen Gesellschaft, 7, 225.
Tooby, J., & DeVore, I. (1987). The reconstruction of hominid
behavioral evolution through strategic modeling. In W. Kinzey
(Ed.), Primate models of hominid behavior (pp. 183–237). New
York: SUNY Press.
564 Arch Sex Behav (2011) 40:559–564
123