Evolutionarily speaking...

What contribution does the fact that men and women have disjointed sexual peaks have in the survival of the human species?

if the woman cums first she might lose interest? and ive heard a woman cumming after the guy cums in her somehow increases the chances of becoming pregnant. i dont know if i believe that, but maybe something to do with the contractions involved with the orgasm helping the sperm.

i guess i would just go with the woman losing interest thing but i just pulled that out of my ass

the contractions suck the sperm into the uterus, thus helping hte sperm get to where they're going.

but the original poster was reffering to age difference in peak sexuality i believe, not length of time it takes to cum.

Originally Posted by dangermoose

but the original poster was reffering to age difference in peak sexuality i believe, not length of time it takes to cum.

That is correct, thanks.

Fexurbis - there are two kinds of sexual peaks you could be referring to:

1. In an individual act of intercourse, the woman takes longer to build up to a climax,and a longer time to come down from it. A male can get it up rather quickly, and once he orgasms, he's done for a while. Some of us can prolong the erection for a minute or so after cumming, to help finish off the woman's orgasm if she is not there yet. But most guys are pigs, and just roll over and go to sleep when they have shot their load.

2. A male reaches his sexual peak at 19, a woman at about 40, too early for the male, too late for the female. It's not fair.

I think there'd be WAY too many kids if they were the same.

19 year old parents. Then 21 year old parents of two. Then 22 year old parents of three. And so on and so forth.

And that would be HORRIBLE.

By women taking so much longer to hit their peak, it's a form of population control.

My two cents.

i think its a form of population control in multiple senses, make sure we dont have too many all at once, and to make sure we dont stop having them once the 20's are over. If the sexual peaks are different, it means that at least one partner will be horny a lot of the time for many years.

Guys, you guys are off your rockers...what the fuck does evolutionary biology have to do with population control?


If we were to have WAY too many kids, that would mean, again, evolutionarily speaking, that our species was being successful from a biological standpoint (not the opposite).

Fexurbis I think the reason that males reach thier peak around 19-21 is because that is when they are beggining to reach thier their physical peak (21-25) aswell and are capable of protecting and providing for young offspring the best. I think the reason females reach thier peak around 35 is more to do with thier biological clock ticking, humans were never supposed to live into thier 60's and 70's, in the wild the average lifespan excluding sudden death was 40-50, so at 35 a womans body reckons she has maybe 10 or 11 years left at best if shes lucky and so urges her to have a final push to reproduce, knowing she will be able to rear the child to an age where it is capable of fending for itself for the most part. At least thats what I always figured, makes more sense than population control anyway.

Originally Posted by fexurbis

Guys, you guys are off your rockers...what the fuck does evolutionary biology have to do with population control?


If we were to have WAY too many kids, that would mean, again, evolutionarily speaking, that our species was being successful from a biological standpoint (not the opposite).

If we had way too many kids, it would mean that there would be too much competition for food and other resources, so nature tries to limit the fertility rate.