Then again, if sleeping with a dude -feels nice-, you'll probably do it more? And hey presto, one of those future times you get knocked up. So there's a bit of evolutionary pressure.
This. I've never understood the argument that female orgasm is an evolutionary fluke. Motivation is motivation, even if it's not strictly necessary to the process.
Yeah... there's more to it*, but at least part of the reason it's likely an evolutionary fluke -- or, more precisely, exists in ladies because the physiological reaction is incredibly strongly selected for in fella's, kinda' like the whole nipple thing in reverse -- is... well, you realize that something like a third of women,
don't? Or do so very rarely. And that actual, y'know, penetrative sex, is fairly unlikely to cause one? Forgetting the exact numbers, but it was found** that something like half to three quarters of ladies that
do experience it,
don't (or, at least, seldom) from th'act of reproductive intercourse (which they still get up to plenty, mind. Still feels good, and there's other reasons besides.).
Basically, if it
is adaptive, it's
really not doing a good job at motivating sleeping with a dude.
*Seriously, look into it. I was personally introduced to the subject of the research et al involved by
Lloyd's book. I remember it having an issue or two, but it did a bloody good job of laying out several of the problems surrounding research into the phenomena and regarding an adaptive explanation (which was/is basically the normal assumption) specifically.
**Once some researchers that
didn't have their heads up their metaphorical experimental methodology arse started doing some work.