Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Biology & Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Sherman actually said this about the clitoris, but the orgasm is what is at issue. Lloyd clarifies this confusion.

References

  • Alcock J (1987) Ardent adaptationism. Nat Hist 96(4):4

    Google Scholar 

  • Alcock J, Sherman PW (1994) The utility of the proximate/ultimate distinction. Ethology 96:58–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amundson R (1996) Historical development of the concept of adaptation. In: Rose M, Lauder GV (eds) Adaptation. Academic Press, New York, pp 11–53

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 303–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Amundson R (2005) The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought: roots of evo-devo. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Amundson R, Lauder GV (1994) Function without purpose: the uses of causal role function in evolutionary biology. Biol Philos 9:443–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barash DP (2005) Let a thousand orgasms bloom! Evol Psychol 3:347–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Chivers ML (2007) A narrow (but thorough) examination of the evolutionary significance of female orgasm. J Sex Res 44:104–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins R (1982) The extended phenotype. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky T (1951) Genetics and the origin of species, 3rd edn, revised ed. Columbia University Press, New York

  • Endler JA (1986) Natural selection in the wild. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Endler JA, McLellan T (1988) The processes of evolution: towards a newer synthesis. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 19:395–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eschler L (2005) Book review: the case of the female orgasm. Sex Evol Gend 7:287–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fausto-Sterling A (2006) Elisabeth A. Lloyd. The case of the female orgasm: bias in the science of evolution. J Hist Behav Sci 42:399–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher DC (1985) Evolutionary morphology: beyond the analogous, the anecdotal, and the ad hoc. Paleobiology 11:120–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Gans C (1988) Adaptation and the form-function relation. Am Zool 28:681–697

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (1985) The flamingo’s smile. W. W. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (1987a) Freudian slip. Nat Hist 96(2):14–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (1987b) Reply to Alcock. Nat Hist 96(4):4–6

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 205:581–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judson OP (2005) Anticlimax. Nature 436:916–917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell SD (1992) On pluralism and competition in evolutionary explanations. Am Zool 32:135–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Puts DA (2006a) And Hast Thou Slain the Jabberwock? Response to Wallen. Arch Sex Behav 35:637–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puts DA (2006b) Review of ‘the case of the female orgasm: bias in the science of evolution’, by Elisabeth Lloyd. Arch Sex Behav 35:103–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puts DA, Dawood K (2006) The evolution of female orgasm: adaptation or byproduct? Twin Res Hum Genet 9:467–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve HK, Sherman PW (1993) Adaptation and the goals of evolutionary research. Q Rev Biol 68:1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman PW (1988) The levels of analysis. Anim Behav 35:616–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman PW (1989) The clitoris debate and the levels of analysis. Anim Behav 36:697–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Symons D (1979) The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wake DB (1991) Homoplasy: the result of natural selection, or evidence of design limitations? Am Nat 138:543–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ron Amundson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Amundson, R. Why don’t you write about something more interesting, Lisa?. Biol Philos 23, 439–446 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-007-9103-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-007-9103-9

Navigation