Is
fake orgasm in [Human] females (FOF) a dishonest signal? (Clara B. Jones,
2013)
For
a detailed discussion of "dishonest signaling" see Dawkins &Guilford (1991 Anim. Behav. 41:5 ).
Stereotyped and ritualized behaviors in humans have been documented
and discussed by Eibl-Eibesfeldt (2007), in particular, the
unambiguous “eyebrow-flash” motor pattern (stereotyped lifting of
the eyebrows). The latter author conducted cross-cultural research
including cryptic filming of the eye-flash, demonstrating that, in
cultures throughout the world, the eye-flash is most likely to occur
between males and females while flirting and in apparent courtship,
and, other, “bonding” situations, suggesting regulation of
differential fitness optima x contexts. Eibl-Eibesfeldt (2007)
concluded that, with the exception of discrete vocal displays (Marler
1976), stereotyped and ritualized action patterns are rare in the
human behavioral repertoire, and it is assumed in this section that
the latter condition obtains because, compared to other organisms,
phenotypes of Homo sapiens are shaped to a large degree by
learning. Among large animals, learning mechanisms are thought to
have evolved in response to rapidly changing (“stochastic”)
environments favoring flexible, resilient, and “plastic”behavior,
effects with the potential for rapid adjustment of the phenotype to
environmental heterogeneity (e.g., Mazur 2004, Jones 2012,
West-Eberhard 2003; see Proulx 2001), possibly decreasing the
selective advantage of some hard-wired responses such as those
dedicated by the process of ritualization to stereotypy over time and
space. In the present section, a variable, “dishonest”,
behavioral pattern is discussed. This response, “fake” orgasm in
human females (hereafter, “dishonest orgasm”), consciously mimics
involuntary, “honest”orgasm by combining and recombining discrete
(usually, vocal) and graded components of the latter, autonomic
response.
Relative
to the theoretical and empirical literature on the structure(s) and
function(s) of “honest” male orgasms, the literature on “honest”
or “face” orgasm by human females is limited (but, see Komisaruk
et al. 2006). In 2007a, Jones (Mialon 2012) suggested that dishonest,
fake orgasm by human females (FOF) might be viewed in the context of
Signaling Theory (Fig. 5.1). Following the general schema advanced by
Maynard Smith and Harper (2003), a partial conceptual framework is
proposed for the study of dishonest orgasms displayed by female Homo
sapiens. As a simplifying assumption, dishonest orgasm is
assessed herein as a straightforward manifestation of
Signaler-Receiver dynamics between two adults ("action-response
games") because: (1) human sexual acts may be analyzed as
discrete sequences in time and space ("context-dependent"
behavior), with a discriminable beginning and end; and, (2)
behavioral sequences involving 1 or >1 acts of sexual congress
entails reciprocal ("back-and-forth", not, necessarily,
"tit-for-tat") interactions between members of a dyad. In
the present treatment, dishonest orgasms are considered to represent
intentional, flexible, possibly, learned responses that appear not to
represent a “ritualized" or polymorphic display. However,
motor patterns characteristic of FOF may be stereotyped, in
particular, articulation of femur and acetabulum permitting “axial
skeleton and lower limb movement”.
Following
the schema of Maynard Smith and Harper (2003), dishonest orgasms are
best understood to function as (1) mimicry of honest orgasm and (2)
exploitation (manipulation) of the sexual partner(s). Continuing to
employ the system in Maynard Smith and Harper (2003), dishonest
orgasm, as mimicry, represents an "unreliable signal...,
believed because it resembles a reliable cue or signal" (in the
present case, honest orgasm). Dishonest orgasm may be viewed as a
manifestation of proximate conflict or reactions to exogenous stimuli
(alarm?, fear?, discomfort?) between sexual partners, a condition
analogous to an evolutionary "arms-race" (“sexual
conflict”: Rice 2000, Fricke et al. 2010). Related to the latter
suggestion, some (condition-dependent) cases of dishonest orgasm may
result from exogenous, aversive stimuli (disgust, such as, by a
male's tactile, auditory, olfactory responses during sexual
congress), or, from a female's endogenous re-actions (alarm, fear). A
byproduct or goal of dishonest orgasm presenting daunting empirical
challenges is the possibility that the intentional display reinforces
a male's feelings of, or, his actual, dominance, control, power,
possibly, inducing aggression in some situations. Following
ethological theory outlined above, honest, stereotyped, involuntary
signals and displays are expected to represent “true communication”
and to decrease likelihoods of aggression (Tinbergen 1952, Enquist et
al. 2010).
According
to Maynard Smith and Harper's (2003) system, dishonest orgasm would
be classified as an "icon,...a signal whose form is similar to
its meaning" (similar to honest orgasm). Systematic studies of
dishonest orgasm are needed to address the aforementioned
suggestions, and, others. For example: How detectable are dishonest
from honest orgasms? Do dishonest orgasms incorporate components of
honest orgasms? What are the differential costs and benefits of
dishonest compared and contrasted to honest displays of orgasm or no
display? What are the ancestral (genetic, physiological) origins of
dishonest and honest orgasm, and do they differ?
Dishonest
orgasm apparently represents an example of an exaggerated, compound
(multi-component) display whose stereotyped features derive from its
similarity to honest orgasm. Benefits from dishonest orgasm may
sometimes outweigh costs, sometimes not. Females are expected to be
differentially skilled at faking orgasm, and, likelihoods of
aggression may vary with expertise.
For
example, the learned elements of dishonest orgasm may have required
modifications in the genetic and physiological substrates of honest
orgasm. As a likely product of directional (sexual) selection, honest
orgasm, on average, is expected to respond to a narrower range of
endogenous and exogenous stimuli compared to dishonest orgasm,
possibly, restricting the utility of the latter response in some
regimes (stable conditions). The previous rationale may represent one
of several proximate benefits of flexible tactics and strategies,
including, social learning via familial or other social conventions,
such as, cultural traditions. Learned mechanisms are thought to
minimize potential costs in heterogeneous, stressful, unstable,
or“rapidly changing” conditions (Proppe et al 2011, Mazur 1986),
with effects more difficult to predict or control than those
attendant to honest displays of orgasm. Nonetheless, a possibly
advantageous tradeoff to dishonest orgasm would be that the signaler
is likely to have more control over energy expenditure compared to
contexts in which involuntary, honest orgasm is expressed. This
possibility suggests that measuring energetic variables is one
methodological approach to studying the two forms of female orgasm
empirically. Such research programs have the potential to unify
studies of intra- and inter-specific social competition
(West-Eberhard 1979, Tobias and Seddon 2009) with those of “rapid”
evolution (West-Eberhard 2003, Hairston et al. 2005), including,
differential intensities of selection.