For while O’Donnell crusaded against masturbation in the mid-1990s, denouncing it as “toying” with the organs of procreation and generally undermining baby making, the facts are to the contrary. Evidence from elephants to rodents to humans shows that masturbating is—counterintuitively—an excellent way to make healthy babies, and lots of them. No one who believes in the “family” part of family values can let her claims stand.
You will find that opening paragraph in an entertaining article in Newsweek (lid lob: linkfilter.) It surveys a variety of stories suggesting that masturbation serves an adaptive role and was selected for by evolution. The stories given (hygiene, signaling (??)) are mostly of the just-so variety, but this is a case where we don’t need to infer exactly the reason. We can prove the evolutionary advantage of masturbation by a simple appeal to revealed preference.
There are lots of ways we can touch ourselves and among these, Mother Nature has revealed a very clear preference. You cannot tickle yourself. Because the brain has a system for distinguishing between stimuli caused by others and stimuli caused by ourselves. Nature puts this system to good use: such a huge fraction of sensory information comes from incidental contact with yourself that it has to be filtered out so that we can detect contact with others.
Mother Nature could have used this same system to put an end to masturbation once and for all: simply detect when its us and mute the sensation. No gain, no Spain. Instead, she made an exception in this case. She must have had a good reason.
13 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 13, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Anna
While that’ll make sense to most of us, attempting to counter a hardcore Christian’s argument with “Evolution” might feel like a waste of energy.
October 14, 2010 at 10:15 am
jeff
Anna, yes but we can apply the revealed preference argument to whomever the designer happens to be. Although we might have trouble using revealed preference when the subject is omnipotent:
https://cheeptalk.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/deus-economicus/
October 13, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Anonymous
well, some waste of energy is enjoyable.
October 14, 2010 at 8:18 am
Wife
Of all days, you pick today to talk about this title when I just directed one of our kid’s teacher to the website! So embarrassing!!!!
October 14, 2010 at 11:12 am
rd
can we assume that just because our species has a particular feature, that implies it has an evolutionary advantage?
isn’t it possible that we have traits that don’t serve us well but we survive in spite of them – eg appendixes ?
evolution is random and even if it converged to optimality over long t, our current state is just a snapshot
please let me know if i’m missing something – from what i’ve read does seem evolutionary biologists do make the same assumption (if we have a trait, must have evolutionary advantage) – but seems obviously not true to me
October 14, 2010 at 11:40 am
jeff
i am not a biologist so i am just making things up, but what i do want to point out is that the argument i am making here is stronger than just “we are built with X therefore X is good.” what i am saying is that based on what we know about other kinds of self-stimulation, nature apparently went out of her way to make an exception. this makes it less likely that it was just accidental and evolutionarily neutral.
but of course we can never know for sure.
October 14, 2010 at 11:52 am
rd
thanks – but i’m not sure i agree – you seem to treat tickling as the norm when it seems to me it’s more the exception. it’s not like we normally can’t even feel our own touch, and can feel it just for sexual purposes. so i dont think nature went out of her way for this.. but not worth spending more time discussing now i dont think and still an interesting idea regardless
thanks for your reply
October 14, 2010 at 10:52 pm
jeff
not so. (non-)ticking is the norm not the exception. see my next post. https://cheeptalk.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/escalation/
October 14, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Jaylene
A game theory analysis of the topic, assuming alternative partner stimulation and the option of a partner ar also available ….would lead one to think that this is a zero sum game for a man and not one for the female….thus an obvious plot by MOther (female) nature….haha!
My thoughts are that you may realize the true reason this has evolved as a viable stimulation because of the aggravation and embarassment spouses cause in social settings………..or what they write about on blogs their children’s teachers read………….bet you are the talk of ther school in the teacher’s lunchroom!!!!! Only an economist….bless your wife.
October 14, 2010 at 10:50 pm
jeff
yes.
October 14, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Escalation « Cheap Talk
[…] from a certain solitary activity, all other sensations caused by our own action are filtered out or muted by the brain so that we […]
October 19, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Anthony
Perhaps masturbation helps flush the system of aged sperm? It shouldn’t be that hard to do sperm motility counts on samples obtained from men who hadn’t masturbated or had sex for various periods of time to check the validity of the hypothesis.
Sperm banks want you to refrain from masturbating or having sex for 48 hours before providing a sample, but they seem to be aiming for quantity as much as quality.
November 7, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Introducing Roger Myerson « Cheap Talk
[…] public domain. We hope he becomes a permanent member of the blog. So, if among the posts about masturbation and Charlie Sheen’s marital problems you find a post about “What should be done in […]