Lloyd Criticises a Number of Explanations of the Evolution of Female Orgasm, and Proposes an Alternative. Would She Also Criticise Ridley’s ‘Emma Bovary’ Theory? Should She? Why?

1532 Words7 Pages
Elizabeth Lloyd sought the topic of female orgasm as an area of strong interest and delved into the topic to essentially source its origin. In doing so, Lloyd collectively analysed and criticised several theories that as a majority, represented the idea that female orgasm is an evolutionary adaptation. In particular, Lloyd placed emphasis on those that say it stems from evolutionary pressure and critiques each theory. In return, Lloyd proposes her very own idea; that female orgasm is not directly associated to sexual reproduction. In fact, that is another theory she criticises alongside with hormonal determination of sexual behaviour and pair bonding. On the opposing avenue, Ridley holds a view contradictory to the attitudes of Lloyd and argues for evolutionary adaptation. He presents the “Emma-Bovary” theory because it links the three universal features of the mating system regarding females. The following report will elaborate on Lloyd’s criticism of the several theories posed on the evolution of female orgasm and highlights her alternate explanation. A plethora of different opinions on female orgasm had flourished prior to Lloyd, which essentially in time encouraged her to propose her perspective. She contended that the several theories proposed, actually lack sufficient evidence to validate any of the adaptive explanations for female orgasm. The motive behind her article was to provide a sufficient rebuttal to opinions such as Ridley’s that place an emphasis on the reproductive pressure behind female orgasm. Ridley and others believed that all sexual behaviour had evolved in response to reproductive pressures, however Lloyd believes that these assumptions are empirically incorrect. To begin with, the hormonal determination of sexual behaviour acknowledges that female

More about Lloyd Criticises a Number of Explanations of the Evolution of Female Orgasm, and Proposes an Alternative. Would She Also Criticise Ridley’s ‘Emma Bovary’ Theory? Should She? Why?

Open Document