Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 439–446 | Cite as

Why don’t you write about something more interesting, Lisa?

Review of Elisabeth A. Lloyd (2005), The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
  • Ron Amundson
Article

The late Stephen Jay Gould, at one point in his wide ranging studies, decided to look into the early publications of Alfred Kinsey to see if he could find insights into Kinsey’s later work in sexology. Kinsey began his career as a taxonomist of gall wasps. Gould located and dusted off the (Harvard) Widener Library copy of a Kinsey monograph on wasps from the 1930s, and found graffiti on the title page: “Why don’t you write about something more interesting, Al?” (Gould 1985, p.157).

Elisabeth Lloyd captured public attention with her 2005 publication of The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution. Orgasms are interesting. The New York Times reviewed the book in its Tuesday Science section (a section that Gould had read religiously). Lloyd was immediately invited to chat about her book with Barbara Walters and colleagues in NBC’s morning program The View. Saturday Night Livejoked that the book was a “real departure for the Hardy Boys.” (The Hardy Boys was a series of...

References

  1. Alcock J (1987) Ardent adaptationism. Nat Hist 96(4):4Google Scholar
  2. Alcock J, Sherman PW (1994) The utility of the proximate/ultimate distinction. Ethology 96:58–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amundson R (1996) Historical development of the concept of adaptation. In: Rose M, Lauder GV (eds) Adaptation. Academic Press, New York, pp 11–53Google Scholar
  4. Amundson R (2001) Adaptation and development: on the lack of common ground. In: Orzack S, Sober E (eds) Adaptationism and optimality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 303–334Google Scholar
  5. Amundson R (2005) The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought: roots of evo-devo. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Amundson R, Lauder GV (1994) Function without purpose: the uses of causal role function in evolutionary biology. Biol Philos 9:443–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barash DP (2005) Let a thousand orgasms bloom! Evol Psychol 3:347–354Google Scholar
  8. Chivers ML (2007) A narrow (but thorough) examination of the evolutionary significance of female orgasm. J Sex Res 44:104–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dawkins R (1982) The extended phenotype. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Dobzhansky T (1951) Genetics and the origin of species, 3rd edn, revised ed. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Endler JA (1986) Natural selection in the wild. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  12. Endler JA, McLellan T (1988) The processes of evolution: towards a newer synthesis. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 19:395–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eschler L (2005) Book review: the case of the female orgasm. Sex Evol Gend 7:287–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fausto-Sterling A (2006) Elisabeth A. Lloyd. The case of the female orgasm: bias in the science of evolution. J Hist Behav Sci 42:399–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fisher DC (1985) Evolutionary morphology: beyond the analogous, the anecdotal, and the ad hoc. Paleobiology 11:120–138Google Scholar
  16. Gans C (1988) Adaptation and the form-function relation. Am Zool 28:681–697Google Scholar
  17. Gould SJ (1985) The flamingo’s smile. W. W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Gould SJ (1987a) Freudian slip. Nat Hist 96(2):14–21Google Scholar
  19. Gould SJ (1987b) Reply to Alcock. Nat Hist 96(4):4–6Google Scholar
  20. Gould SJ, Lewontin RC (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc R Soc Lond B 205:581–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Judson OP (2005) Anticlimax. Nature 436:916–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mitchell SD (1992) On pluralism and competition in evolutionary explanations. Am Zool 32:135–144Google Scholar
  23. Puts DA (2006a) And Hast Thou Slain the Jabberwock? Response to Wallen. Arch Sex Behav 35:637–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Puts DA (2006b) Review of ‘the case of the female orgasm: bias in the science of evolution’, by Elisabeth Lloyd. Arch Sex Behav 35:103–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Puts DA, Dawood K (2006) The evolution of female orgasm: adaptation or byproduct? Twin Res Hum Genet 9:467–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reeve HK, Sherman PW (1993) Adaptation and the goals of evolutionary research. Q Rev Biol 68:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sherman PW (1988) The levels of analysis. Anim Behav 35:616–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sherman PW (1989) The clitoris debate and the levels of analysis. Anim Behav 36:697–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Symons D (1979) The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Wake DB (1991) Homoplasy: the result of natural selection, or evidence of design limitations? Am Nat 138:543–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Hawaii at HiloHiloUSA

Personalised recommendations