Re: Re: POLITICS: OT: Sex, love and reproduction --Chris

[Guest guest]

<Sex does not equal sexuality. Chris' original point referred to

sexuality, and this whole discussion is about homosexuality, not

homosexual sex. Even so, did a pretty good job of showing that

even sex itself can be dissociated from reproduction. The

dissociation between sexuality and reproduction is even stronger and

more obvious.

_________________

You can dissociate sex from reproduction if you want to just as eating can be

dissaciated from food and supplying of nutrients to the body so that life can

sustain itself. I think that a bit silly so I do not do it. Not only is it

silly, neither is it, in reality, dissociated from the issue.

________________

<You're failing to make these basic, essential

distinctions, and dismissing the entire field of psychology only

makes you seem like someone desperately clutching at straws to defend

an extremist anti-humanitarian ideology in the face of overwhelming

evidence that opposes it.

______________

Get the DSM-IV, (Diagnostic Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric

Association) and read it. You will see most every aspect of humaness being

defined as a disorder. And more are constantly being added as good imaginations

can conjure, for no reason other than to justify the prescribing of particular

medications that are extremely profitable. Homosexuality is not in there

because of politics. Does that bother me? Not at all - the whole thing bothers

me because it is a bunch of muck. Dismiss it? It is nothing but vodoo

medicine. You want to believe it? Be my guest. That is your right just as it

is mine to say no thank you, I am not that naive.

____________________

<It's fine to criticize the methodology and

theoretical maturity of scientific paradigms, but it makes the

existence of the natural phenomena they target no less palpable.

_________________

If psychology were to address natural phenomena as actually being natural, and

was to use scientific methodogy and be theoretically mature in scientific

paradigms, I might be a bit less critical of the field. But it does not.

_____________

<It appears you would like to use your (laughably broad and overgeneral)

dismissal of psychology as a rhetorical sleight to dismiss the brain

events thereby studied.

______________________

The brain events being studied are not being done by psychologists. They are

being done by neuroscientists. They are not the same. Psychologists at this

point, are only grabbing from the other and fighting for their survival as a

profession so to continue bilking money off of people. And I may add - at the

expense of people's " humaness " AND physical well being.

___________________

<Sorry, you'll have to pick a more naive

audience next time. While I don't mind mush in my oat porridge, I

find it rather distasteful in discourse about potential violations of

the humanity of million of people.

______________________

What is human about categorizing people into groups and placing labels on them?

What is human about drumming up reasons to separate us from each other rather

than viewing us as all one and the same?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/18/04 9:01:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> You can dissociate sex from reproduction if you want to just as eating can

> be dissaciated from food and supplying of nutrients to the body so that life

> can sustain itself. I think that a bit silly so I do not do it. Not only is

> it silly, neither is it, in reality, dissociated from the issue.

Hi ,

Mike did a fine job proving how silly this is. But one more point of

consideration is that there is a significant element of disanalogy here in that

consideration of food without regard to nutrition could lead to significant

bodily

harm, while sex without regard to reproduction cannot.

If you eat food with no nutritional value, and do not eat food with

nutritional value, you will suffer malnutrition.

On the other hand, if you have sex with no reproductive value (such as anal

sex, oral sex, and intercourse during pregnancy, menopause, or intercourse with

operations rendering one or more participants infertile), and never have sex

that has any reproductive value (unprotected vaginal intercourse during a

fertile period of the ovulatory cycle of the female), you won't suffer any

bodily

harm.

The analogy, even if valid, does not make your point, for the reasons Mike

laid down (namely that there are significant non-nutritional components

to the process of eating), but for the reasons above, it is invalid anyway.

Chris

[Guest guest]

<Mike did a fine job proving how silly this is.

* Where did mike prove anything? Is there a post I missed? I could get more

awrny and ask that this whole concept of " sexuality " as having nothing to do

with sex and reproduction be proven to actually exist, and not be simply some

silly concept conjured up in the human imagination.

<But one more point of

consideration is that there is a significant element of disanalogy here in that

consideration of food without regard to nutrition could lead to significant

bodily

harm, while sex without regard to reproduction cannot.

*I think you would do better to try and convince this to the " other group " of

people to which one of the very serious issues with their lifestyle is AIDS, not

that STD's are specific to them. There are also other harms that do come as a

result of particular styles of sex which are another issue within their

lifestyle.

<If you eat food with no nutritional value, and do not eat food with

nutritional value, you will suffer malnutrition.

*And if everyone was to become homosexual, the species would not prograte and

would die.

<On the other hand, if you have sex with no reproductive value (such as anal

sex, oral sex, and intercourse during pregnancy, menopause, or intercourse with

operations rendering one or more participants infertile), and never have sex

that has any reproductive value (unprotected vaginal intercourse during a

fertile period of the ovulatory cycle of the female), you won't suffer any

bodily

harm.

*This is factually incorrect. To get more detailed is stretching the limits of

appropriate conversation for a board such as this. But you need to learn a bit

more about the sex styles you are defending.

<The analogy, even if valid, does not make your point, for the reasons Mike

laid down (namely that there are significant non-nutritional components

to the process of eating), but for the reasons above, it is invalid anyway.

*No you and Mike have failed to make your points.

..

[Guest guest]

>On the other hand, if you have sex with no reproductive value (such as anal

>sex, oral sex, and intercourse during pregnancy, menopause, or intercourse with

>operations rendering one or more participants infertile), and never have sex

>that has any reproductive value (unprotected vaginal intercourse during a

>fertile period of the ovulatory cycle of the female), you won't suffer any

bodily

>harm.

Chris:

Actually, if you read some of the older books, you will see that there

are people who say with a great deal of authority that such sex will

rot your brain and lead to general moral decay. You should only have

sex if you are intending to create kids, otherwise it is mere

indulgence. And even then, one should not enjoy it too much.

Now, if you look at it logically, people were much stricter about

these things in the Puritan days, and in the Middle East -- in both

cases women were restricted to somber clothing that covered more

of their body parts, and folks were were immoral could be stoned.

And in both cases, you can easily see that they were much better

off than we are, healthier, more peaceful, with a far more robust

economy. QED.

-- Heidi <weg>

>

[Guest guest]

>> I think you would do better to try and convince this to the " other group " of

people to which one of the very serious issues with their lifestyle is AIDS <<

Actually, lesbians have the lowest incidence of AIDS of any sexual orientation.

We are, of course, God's Chosen People. QED.

>> There are also other harms that do come as a result of particular styles of

sex which are another issue within their lifestyle. <<

Such as the high incidence of cervical cancer in women associated with sexual

intercourse with men? Known to be MUCH lower in lesbians. Definitely a good

reason to abandon your lifestyle.

You can go back to the well a thousand times for reasons to support your

prejudice, but it's always been dry and it always will be.

Christie

[Guest guest]

<Actually, if you read some of the older books, you will see that there

are people who say with a great deal of authority that such sex will

rot your brain and lead to general moral decay. You should only have

sex if you are intending to create kids, otherwise it is mere

indulgence. And even then, one should not enjoy it too much.

Heidi,

Going back in history, there were truths to the statements that sex could rot

your brain. They did not have cures for syphilis until 1941.

[Guest guest]

<Actually, lesbians have the lowest incidence of AIDS of any sexual orientation.

We are, of course, God's Chosen People. QED.

* Well Christie, you may be God's chosen people. He has yet to draw me into his

inner circle and share insider information. All I know from reading the Bible is

that it says the Jews are his chosen. And one of the commandments described

therein says never to use his name in vain. I've never had good luck so just in

case he really does exist, I made it a rule to never speak for him or made too

many assumptions in his regard. I am well aware that lesbians have lower

incidences of AIDS, but this is not true of male homosexuals, and I am aware of

the reasons for this. As I stated before, it was when I was in college that the

" come out of the closet " thing hit and half my friends did. This was a few

years before the reality of AIDS was realised which was too late for the many

who had spent evening after evening in the bathhouses.

<Such as the high incidence of cervical cancer in women associated with sexual

intercourse with men? Known to be MUCH lower in lesbians. Definitely a good

reason to abandon your lifestyle.

*Wow, when was cervical cancer ever determined to be caused by sexual

intercourse? I missed that one. I thought it had more to do with obesity and

sugar. I guess you are also disputing that there is no harm in sex.

<You can go back to the well a thousand times for reasons to support your

prejudice, but it's always been dry and it always will be.

*Christie, I thinking the prejudging is yours, not mine.

[Guest guest]

>Heidi,

>

>Going back in history, there were truths to the statements that sex could rot

your brain. They did not have cures for syphilis until 1941.

>

>

Sure, but the books I was referring to were talking about " Onanism " --- which

has a really really really low risk of infection with syphilus (about as high

a rate of STD's as reading dirty magazines, maybe lower). I TOTALLY

agree that having sex with a bunch of other people is not a good idea ...

same as eating off the same plate in a restaurant without washing

the plate. (which is a good argument for a good, monagamous,

gay marriage?).

Women who were infected with syphilus though, tended to get it

from their husbands ... who philandered a lot. So a wife who

" did her duty " with her husband was taking a big risk ... which

is also the case in Africa. A moral wife does not question her

husband ... and a lot of those husbands need questioning!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Yeah!! Let's go back to the desert!! Last one there's a rotten egg!

>Heidi, you saved our culture on the brink of disaster! Just when

>everyone was lost in the throes of sodomy, letting our economy go to

>pot, you bring forth the light of ancient wisdom! Heidi, you are a

>prophetess! (Actually, I don't know if that's allowed--maybe you

>should change your name to Henry)

>

>Mike

I humbly thank you from the depths of my bonnet, as I sit here

sweltering in my long black multi-layered skirt and blouses.

(Actually the advantage to this getup is that no one can

tell if I need to lose 30 lbs or not ... or in fact if I am female

or not. Hmm. This has potential ... a Burkah would be even better ... ).

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

,

> * Where did mike prove anything? Is there a post I missed?

In the post where he showed how eating food has numerous non-nutritional

dimensions, and thus eating can be considered as an independent phenomenon from

food. However, I pointed out why it was not completely independent-- namely,

that one cannot engage in it with infinite disregard for nutrition without

physiological problems resulting, whereas one fully can engage in sexuality and

even sex with infinite disregard for reproduction, never reproduce, and suffer

no

problems as a result. Thus, sexuality, even sex, and reproduction, while

related, are wholly independent phenomena.

> I could get more awrny and ask that this whole concept of " sexuality " as

having

> nothing to do with sex and reproduction be proven to actually exist, and

> not be simply some silly concept conjured up in the human imagination.

I already gave numerous proofs of this, and you have failed to answer a

single one of them. Among them:

*Humans are biologically equipped with the potential to induce orgasms in

ways that have no reproductive value whatsoever

--Anal stimulation can produce orgasm

*Humans experience sexual desires for certain people or during certain times

with whom or during which they cannot reproduce

--Homosexuality, ironically, prooves this

--Many women report peak sexual desire during menstruation, which is

relatively low-fertility time

--Pregnant women have sexual desire, and some women have *more* sexual

desire when pregnant

--Menopausal women experience sexual desire

--Women deliberately rendered infertile experience sexual desire

*Humans can and do utilize their sexual desires in ways that have no

reproductive value

--Anal sex

--Oral sex

--Masturbation

--Manual stimulation of another person

--Protected sex

*Erogenous zones do not correspond very well to reproductive value

--Clitoral stimulation is more likely to produce orgasm than vaginal

stimulation, yet is LEAST likely to be stimulated during intercourse out of any

of the sexual activities involving the vaginal area

--Numerous other erogenous zones exist on a woman's body that offer

sexual pleasure but do NOT offer any increase in the chance of fertilization

--Numerous erogenous zones exist on the male body that cannot POSSIBLY

enter the vagina or be stimulated by the mere insertion of the penis into the

vagina. For example, underneath the scrotum and in between the legs leading to

the anus, or, as previously mentioned, within the anus.

Now, here are the points drawn from that:

1) While reproduction played some role as an ultimate cause in the

evolutionary development of sex, humans have also evolved the capacity and

desire to

manipulate sex in such a way to engage in it completely independent of

reproduction for its own sake, and the proximate causes of sex have nothing to

do with

reproduction

2) While certain sexual characteristics of humans evolved because they

increase the chance of reproduction, many evolved that do NOT increase the

chance

of reproduction, and thus, even as an ultimate cause, do not have any clear

association with reproduction

A third point that is rather obvious and not necessarily drawn from the

information above, is that love and sexuality, not simply sex, clearly have

evolved

for their value of increasing social tenacity, or the raising of children,

and not for the production of children. Since homosexuality involves not simply

sex, but sexuality, including love, an attribution of naturalness or

normalness to a sexuality based on its reproductive value is all the more

absurd.

Now THAT is my argument. I think I've explained it clearly enough. Will you

now address the points that I made, or will you merely assert again that I

haven't proved my point?

>

> <But one more point of

> consideration is that there is a significant element of disanalogy here in

> that

> consideration of food without regard to nutrition could lead to significant

> bodily

> harm, while sex without regard to reproduction cannot.

>

> *I think you would do better to try and convince this to the " other group "

> of people to which one of the very serious issues with their lifestyle is

> AIDS, not that STD's are specific to them. There are also other harms that do

> come as a result of particular styles of sex which are another issue within

> their lifestyle.

This is a non-sequitor. One is not more likely to get AIDS from protected

sex than one is from unprotected sex, and one is not more likely to get AIDS

from oral sex than from other forms of sex. Furthermore, you cannot equate

careless anal sex with responsible anal sex. Anyone can choose to be safe and

get

tested for HIV if they are in a high-risk group. And heterosexuals, who I

understand to have a much lower risk of HIV, often engage in anal sex, and I'm

not aware of any evidence that they are more likely to contract HIV with anal

sex.

Every single point I mention above is possible and likely to occur between a

monogamous couple. So, assume a monogamous couple and assume testing for

STDs, and then show how any of these activities increases the liklihood of

physical harm.

> <If you eat food with no nutritional value, and do not eat food with

> nutritional value, you will suffer malnutrition.

>

> *And if everyone was to become homosexual, the species would not prograte

> and would die.

I guess Gene was wrong that I am King of the Non-Sequitor. I surrender the

title.

> <On the other hand, if you have sex with no reproductive value (such as

> anal

> sex, oral sex, and intercourse during pregnancy, menopause, or intercourse

> with

> operations rendering one or more participants infertile), and never have sex

>

> that has any reproductive value (unprotected vaginal intercourse during a

> fertile period of the ovulatory cycle of the female), you won't suffer any

> bodily

> harm.

>

> *This is factually incorrect.

No, it is factually correct. Again, assume a monogamous couple tested for

STDs, and offer an example of how physical harm can result from having sex

during menstruation, pregnancy, menopause, having protected sex, or having oral

sex, or masturbating.

Besides, that's not the crux of the issue. The crux is that humans desire to

engage in these behaviors and do so.

> To get more detailed is stretching the limits of appropriate conversation

for a

> board such as this.

According to whom? This is an entirely academic discussion. There is

nothing inappropriate about a public academic discussion of sexuality. There

are no

personal sexual inferences involved, no offensive slang used, etc.

> But you need to learn a bit more about the sex styles you are defending.

Sex styles? I'm describing sexuality as it exists. Are you suggesting that

oral sex is part of a particular " sex style " and not a completely normative

phenomenon that nearly everyone who enagages in sex engages in?

> <The analogy, even if valid, does not make your point, for the reasons Mike

>

> laid down (namely that there are significant non-nutritional

> components

> to the process of eating), but for the reasons above, it is invalid anyway.

>

> *No you and Mike have failed to make your points.

Then please address the points I made in defense of my argument and show why

they do not support it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/18/04 10:39:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> *Wow, when was cervical cancer ever determined to be caused by sexual

> intercourse? I missed that one. I thought it had more to do with obesity and

> sugar. I guess you are also disputing that there is no harm in sex.

,

I never said this. I said that there was no harm in practicing sex without

regard for rerproduction. It was implicit, and I thought it was pretty

apparent, that the operative segment of that phrase is " without regard for

reproduction " not " practicing sex, " since it is assumed that all (most) humans

engage in

sex.

Obviously that's the relevant point to our discussion, not whether sex it

itself has potential dangers, since our discussion is whether or not sexuality

can be dissociated from reproduction or not.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>*Wow, when was cervical cancer ever determined to be caused by

>sexual intercourse? I missed that one. I thought it had more to

>do with obesity and sugar.

if i'm not mistaken ASCUS (atypical cells of undetermined significance) - a

pre-cancerous form of cervical dysplasia - is caused by an HPV (human

papilloma virus) which is sexually transmitted. this is how sexual

intercourse can *lead to* cervical cancer.

having said that, whether or not the cells *become* cancerous, imo, does

have to do with diet and the general health of the individual (although i

can't imagine how obesity would lead to cervical cancer).

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

>> if i'm not mistaken ASCUS (atypical cells of undetermined significance) - a

pre-cancerous form of cervical dysplasia - is caused by an HPV (human

papilloma virus) which is sexually transmitted. this is how sexual

intercourse can *lead to* cervical cancer. <<

And just to clarify, I did not say that sexual intercourse *caused* cervical

cancer. Those were words put in my mouth in a response. What I said is that it

was *associated with* sexual intercourse. And that distinction is really my

whole point.

" Gay lifestyle, " which doesn't exist but is, I presume, being used here as code

for " gay sex, " doesn't *cause* AIDS either. Just as HPV can cause cervical

cancer, so can HIV cause AIDS. But there is nothing intrinsic about either gay

sex or straight sex that " causes " diseases. A gay man could have sex ten

thousand times with ten thousand different HIV negative partners and not get

HIV, just as a straight woman could have sex ten thousand times with ten

thousand different men who didn't have HPV, and not get HPV.

Christie

[Guest guest]

>> I am well aware that lesbians have lower incidences of AIDS, but this is not

true of male homosexuals <<

Well, actually, most cases of AIDS are in heterosexual people, and most HIV

transmissions are via heterosexual sex.

Of course, I'm not trying to prove anything about heterosexuality or

homosexuality with these statistics. I am using them to point out that yet

again, the well is dry. You say, " Christie, I thinking the prejudging is yours,

not mine, " but if that were true, your stated bases for your beliefs would be

correct and relevant, and they're not. That's because they are NOT the bases for

your beliefs, they are just a collection of after-the-fact mud that gets slung

in the hope some of it will stick.

If HIV had some relevance to the morality of homosexuality, then homosexuality

would not have been immoral prior to the emergence of HIV as a human pathogen,

and would cease to be immoral if and when HIV were eradicated. If the morality

of loose living and casual sex had some relevance to the sexual orientation of

the person practicing it, then half the frat boys in America would be on an

express train straight for the hot place.

And none of it would have anything to do with civil rights regardless.

Christie

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Now, here are the points drawn from that:

>1) While reproduction played some role as an ultimate cause in the

>evolutionary development of sex, humans have also evolved the capacity and

>desire to

>manipulate sex in such a way to engage in it completely independent of

>reproduction for its own sake, and the proximate causes of sex have

>nothing to do with

>reproduction

>2) While certain sexual characteristics of humans evolved because they

>increase the chance of reproduction, many evolved that do NOT increase the

>chance

>of reproduction, and thus, even as an ultimate cause, do not have any clear

>association with reproduction

>

>A third point that is rather obvious and not necessarily drawn from the

>information above, is that love and sexuality, not simply sex, clearly

>have evolved

>for their value of increasing social tenacity, or the raising of children,

>and not for the production of children.

I think you're making a couple errors here, subtle but important.

First, while point #2 is probably technically true, it isn't necessarily

relevant to homosexual rights. Homosexuality could be the result of some

kind of nutritional deficiency on the part of the mother -- even if true,

that shouldn't in any way change homosexual rights. Also, we rightly

stigmatize and seek to prevent many natural behaviors, such as

murder. Mere naturalness is no guarantee of rightness or due entitlement.

Second, your third point kind of misses the point, IMO. While many human

traits (including many aspects of sexuality) didn't evolve for the direct

and highly specific purpose of egg fertilization and birth-giving, the

nurturing of one's children is most assuredly a reproductive strategy.

Third, it's undoubtedly useful to distinguish between behaviors like child

nurturing, which are directly evolved strategies, and traits which emerge

accidentally due to, say, environmental factors like malnutrition (and even

many responses to malnutrition are " evolved for " ) or the interaction

between other traits. Perhaps the ability to enjoy orgasms via mechanisms

with absolutely no theoretical reproductive capacity is such an

accident. As with my first point, when it comes to rights and laws and

social stigmas, so what?

Evolution also suggests another way of looking at these stigmas. In

small-scale tribal societies, the success of the tribe is generally very

important to the success of the individual. (In fact, the same is true of

large-scale societies, but in different ways.) It wouldn't surprise me if

small-scale tribes in a primitive environment often can't *afford* to lose

reproductive capacity to widespread homosexuality practiced instead of

heterosexuality, regardless of the actual prevalence of homosexuality

itself. Hence a stigma against homosexuality -- and a resultant pressure

on gays to stay in the closet -- may actually be an evolutionary strategy

that, just as in-group/out-group morality, is suited to tribal life but not

to the much-larger-circle character of life in modern civilization.

-

[Guest guest]

Obesity goes with a diet high in sugar consumption as both go insulin

resistance. What happens often in medicine is mistakenly identifying one

symptom as the cause of another, when in fact, there is a underlying cause

causing both.

RE: Re: POLITICS: OT: Sex, love and reproduction --Chris

>*Wow, when was cervical cancer ever determined to be caused by

>sexual intercourse? I missed that one. I thought it had more to

>do with obesity and sugar.

if i'm not mistaken ASCUS (atypical cells of undetermined significance) - a

pre-cancerous form of cervical dysplasia - is caused by an HPV (human

papilloma virus) which is sexually transmitted. this is how sexual

intercourse can *lead to* cervical cancer.

having said that, whether or not the cells *become* cancerous, imo, does

have to do with diet and the general health of the individual (although i

can't imagine how obesity would lead to cervical cancer).

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

I started responses to your post but didn't finish. I simply do not have time

to answer all. I hoped that would have enlightened the conversation. I

think one of his points was that there is a biological basis involved in all

behavior.

Yes sex occurs for reasons other than reproduction but the problem with your

reasoning is that you are not addressing why. It is by our biology, that varying

areas in situations can cause stimulation and pleasure. If sex did not feel

good, few would spend much time engaged in such activity thus greatly decreasing

the chances of reproduction occurring in the manner in which it does for our

species. Ever heard the term " sex drive " ? Again, you have to understand the

physiology occurring during the process of sexual activity for humans. You

cannot simply touch an errogeous zone and get orgasim. All these activities you

are referring to is called foreplay which occurs before intercourse. This

usually starts before even touching with the flirting process. It then

progresses with touching, kissing, etc. As it progresses, the body is making

changes, temperatures rise, particular hormones are increased, heart rates

increase, etc. - biological processes designed to acheiving an end -

fertilization. This is why you get the birth control before you start the

activities - the innate drives can become overpowering such that better

judgment or desire to not get pregnant gets ignored. Mother nature gets her way

dispite your intentions. The fact we have learned to manipulate it as you say, I

don't think is really evolution. It has more to do with the development of

reliable birth control methods such as the pill and our capacity for intellect

and desires for pleasurable feelings, that says, hey we can do this really fun

thing as we have improved the odds of not having to suffer the potential

consequences.

It was presented by others that biologists (or scientists) have established that

homosexuality is biological and therefore normal. My point was that this was not

what biologists say. Biology is the study of processes. In line with that area

of study and thought, sex is the process by which reproduction is achieved.

Reproduction is why we are designed to have sex. They say every organism exists

to reproduce - survival of their species. Homosexuality would not be the normal

process to achieve that end. Now if you want to really argue this, take it up

with a biologist, not me as that is not my field.

This word " normal " is a problem here - it is all the connotative associations

that go with it that I think upset people. And I think those connotations are

more so due to psychology - not biology. Just because the biologist would say

it was not normal, it does not follow that there is moral judgement being made,

that is right or wrong, you should or should not do it, there is any more or

less value of the human life, whatever. As is indicating, there is

another intellectual process to get to that. Now, from what all knowledge I

have gathered to date from various and asundry places, it is silly to separate

reproduction from sex or sexuality. Again, I would attribute such ideas to

psychology, particularly Freud. You certainly can do it, it is done, but I

think it is what was saying is the opposite of what we need to be doing

now, which is integrating the knowledge of science into our understanding of

determinations of morality.

Re: Re: POLITICS: OT: Sex, love and reproduction --Chris

,

> * Where did mike prove anything? Is there a post I missed?

In the post where he showed how eating food has numerous non-nutritional

dimensions, and thus eating can be considered as an independent phenomenon from

food. However, I pointed out why it was not completely independent-- namely,

that one cannot engage in it with infinite disregard for nutrition without

physiological problems resulting, whereas one fully can engage in sexuality and

even sex with infinite disregard for reproduction, never reproduce, and suffer

no

problems as a result. Thus, sexuality, even sex, and reproduction, while

related, are wholly independent phenomena.

> I could get more awrny and ask that this whole concept of " sexuality " as

having

> nothing to do with sex and reproduction be proven to actually exist, and

> not be simply some silly concept conjured up in the human imagination.

I already gave numerous proofs of this, and you have failed to answer a

single one of them. Among them:

*Humans are biologically equipped with the potential to induce orgasms in

ways that have no reproductive value whatsoever

--Anal stimulation can produce orgasm

*Humans experience sexual desires for certain people or during certain times

with whom or during which they cannot reproduce

--Homosexuality, ironically, prooves this

--Many women report peak sexual desire during menstruation, which is

relatively low-fertility time

--Pregnant women have sexual desire, and some women have *more* sexual

desire when pregnant

--Menopausal women experience sexual desire

--Women deliberately rendered infertile experience sexual desire

*Humans can and do utilize their sexual desires in ways that have no

reproductive value

--Anal sex

--Oral sex

--Masturbation

--Manual stimulation of another person

--Protected sex

*Erogenous zones do not correspond very well to reproductive value

--Clitoral stimulation is more likely to produce orgasm than vaginal

stimulation, yet is LEAST likely to be stimulated during intercourse out of any

of the sexual activities involving the vaginal area

--Numerous other erogenous zones exist on a woman's body that offer

sexual pleasure but do NOT offer any increase in the chance of fertilization

--Numerous erogenous zones exist on the male body that cannot POSSIBLY

enter the vagina or be stimulated by the mere insertion of the penis into the

vagina. For example, underneath the scrotum and in between the legs leading to

the anus, or, as previously mentioned, within the anus.

Now, here are the points drawn from that:

1) While reproduction played some role as an ultimate cause in the

evolutionary development of sex, humans have also evolved the capacity and

desire to

manipulate sex in such a way to engage in it completely independent of

reproduction for its own sake, and the proximate causes of sex have nothing to

do with

reproduction

2) While certain sexual characteristics of humans evolved because they

increase the chance of reproduction, many evolved that do NOT increase the

chance

of reproduction, and thus, even as an ultimate cause, do not have any clear

association with reproduction

A third point that is rather obvious and not necessarily drawn from the

information above, is that love and sexuality, not simply sex, clearly have

evolved

for their value of increasing social tenacity, or the raising of children,

and not for the production of children. Since homosexuality involves not simply

sex, but sexuality, including love, an attribution of naturalness or

normalness to a sexuality based on its reproductive value is all the more

absurd.

Now THAT is my argument. I think I've explained it clearly enough. Will you

now address the points that I made, or will you merely assert again that I

haven't proved my point?

>

> <But one more point of

> consideration is that there is a significant element of disanalogy here in

> that

> consideration of food without regard to nutrition could lead to significant

> bodily

> harm, while sex without regard to reproduction cannot.

>

> *I think you would do better to try and convince this to the " other group "

> of people to which one of the very serious issues with their lifestyle is

> AIDS, not that STD's are specific to them. There are also other harms that do

> come as a result of particular styles of sex which are another issue within

> their lifestyle.

This is a non-sequitor. One is not more likely to get AIDS from protected

sex than one is from unprotected sex, and one is not more likely to get AIDS

from oral sex than from other forms of sex. Furthermore, you cannot equate

careless anal sex with responsible anal sex. Anyone can choose to be safe and

get

tested for HIV if they are in a high-risk group. And heterosexuals, who I

understand to have a much lower risk of HIV, often engage in anal sex, and I'm

not aware of any evidence that they are more likely to contract HIV with anal

sex.

Every single point I mention above is possible and likely to occur between a

monogamous couple. So, assume a monogamous couple and assume testing for

STDs, and then show how any of these activities increases the liklihood of

physical harm.

> <If you eat food with no nutritional value, and do not eat food with

> nutritional value, you will suffer malnutrition.

>

> *And if everyone was to become homosexual, the species would not prograte

> and would die.

I guess Gene was wrong that I am King of the Non-Sequitor. I surrender the

title.

> <On the other hand, if you have sex with no reproductive value (such as

> anal

> sex, oral sex, and intercourse during pregnancy, menopause, or intercourse

> with

> operations rendering one or more participants infertile), and never have sex

>

> that has any reproductive value (unprotected vaginal intercourse during a

> fertile period of the ovulatory cycle of the female), you won't suffer any

> bodily

> harm.

>

> *This is factually incorrect.

No, it is factually correct. Again, assume a monogamous couple tested for

STDs, and offer an example of how physical harm can result from having sex

during menstruation, pregnancy, menopause, having protected sex, or having oral

sex, or masturbating.

Besides, that's not the crux of the issue. The crux is that humans desire to

engage in these behaviors and do so.

> To get more detailed is stretching the limits of appropriate conversation

for a

> board such as this.

According to whom? This is an entirely academic discussion. There is

nothing inappropriate about a public academic discussion of sexuality. There

are no

personal sexual inferences involved, no offensive slang used, etc.

> But you need to learn a bit more about the sex styles you are defending.

Sex styles? I'm describing sexuality as it exists. Are you suggesting that

oral sex is part of a particular " sex style " and not a completely normative

phenomenon that nearly everyone who enagages in sex engages in?

> <The analogy, even if valid, does not make your point, for the reasons Mike

>

> laid down (namely that there are significant non-nutritional

> components

> to the process of eating), but for the reasons above, it is invalid anyway.

>

> *No you and Mike have failed to make your points.

Then please address the points I made in defense of my argument and show why

they do not support it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Christie,

>>Well, actually, most cases of AIDS are in heterosexual people, and most HIV

transmissions are via heterosexual sex.

>>Of course, I'm not trying to prove anything about heterosexuality or

homosexuality with these statistics. I am using them to point out that yet

again, the well is dry. You say, " Christie, I thinking the prejudging is yours,

not mine, " but if that were true, your stated bases for your beliefs would be

correct and relevant, and they're not. That's because they are NOT the bases for

your beliefs, they are just a collection of after-the-fact mud that gets slung

in the hope some of it will stick.

Christie, this is true of the new cases of AIDS now occurring, but this was not

the initial case when it first entered the male homosexual population. My point

was that the high rate it spread was due to the promiscous life style of that

particular population, and promiscous is an understatement. The bases to my

" beliefs " are realities of a lifestyle I experienced first hand and many

substantiated facts on the subject - many from the literature promoted by gays

themselves. There are other aspects I am well aware that go with the life style

and if I really wanted to throw mud, I would point them out. When conclusions

are derived in such manner, prejudging is not an applicable term. I have seen a

reality and aspects of this lifestyle such that I could never say, oh how cool,

may you live happily ever after because I know many don't and there is

tremendous unhappiness that frequently goes with it. You can take differing

opinions, adverse reactions and interpret them to be unfair, homophobic,

discriminatory, persecution, whatever you so choose. But that does not mean

they really are so.

Sexually transmitted diseases are equally as relevant to homosexuals as they are

to heterosexuals, and morals that support promiscuity versus monogamy most

certainly have relevance to one's chances of contacting those diseases.

I do not think this issue is a matter of civil rights. At this point in all the

discussions going on about the issue in various places, the issues most

important to me are the cultural and social ramifications to the family unit and

children. There has been quite a bit since the cultural revolution of the 60's,

much of it I don't think to the better of this society. And much of it, I see

at the expense of our children. That is going to determine my resolution and

position of the issue.

[Guest guest]

>Obesity goes with a diet high in sugar consumption as both go

>insulin resistance. What happens often in medicine is mistakenly

>identifying one symptom as the cause of another, when in fact,

>there is a underlying cause causing both.

while obesity may have to do with excess sugar consumption, i doubt it has

any *causal* relationship to cervical cancer. of course, the same underlying

malnutrition can contribute to both obesity and cervical cancer, although

that's not how i understood your original post to read.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

>@@@@@@@@@@

>

>I hoped that would have enlightened the conversation. I think

>one of his points was that there is a biological basis involved in

>all behavior.

>@@@@@@@@@

>

>That's tautological, not enlightening.

>

> is brilliant, but, as Heidi pointed out, it brings nothing to

>the current argument.

>

>Mike

Basically I think the article DOES bring something

to the argument, but on Christie's side.

makes the case that there is a biological basis for *morality* which

is in absolute disagreement with most religions, which hold that morality

is somehow absolute. For instance, the injunction against " fornication "

makes a lot of sense from a biological point of view (unwanted kids, STD's).

But if you can show that homosexuality is biological, then you have the

NEED to have a " new morality " to handle that case, since our current morality

does not take that group of people into account.

Personally (and some studies seem to agree) I think marriage is a good thing

for people to do ... it stabilizes people, tends to keep them faithful, is

better financially. Bush agrees -- people should get married, it is good for

them, he says.

That is provable socially and probably biologically (if you are faithful to one

partner your STD risk and cervical cancer risk etc. goes way down).

It would seem to be good for homosexual people too -- except it's not

allowed ????

As for celibacy being a good thing ... the current situation in the Catholic

church and priests molesting kids (thousands of cases, it turns out)

seems to belie that it WORKS very well.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

,

> I think you're making a couple errors here, subtle but important.

Ok.

> First, while point #2 is probably technically true, it isn't necessarily

> relevant to homosexual rights.

I didn't say it was.

Homosexuality could be the result of some > kind of nutritional deficiency

> on the part of the mother -- even if true, that shouldn't in any way change

> homosexual rights.

I agree. But I didn't mention homosexual rights in my post, nor in my

subject line.

Also, we rightly stigmatize and seek to prevent many natural behaviors, such

as

> murder. Mere naturalness is no guarantee of rightness or due entitlement.

I absolutely agree. But I was responding specifically to the point of

naturalness, not to any moral points. If had concluded that

heterosexuality

was more moral because it is more natural, that would be a non-sequitor I'd be

happy to point out, but, if she thinks it, she didn't express it explicitly

that I caught, so I didn't fault her for it.

>

> Second, your third point kind of misses the point, IMO. While many human

> traits (including many aspects of sexuality) didn't evolve for the direct

> and highly specific purpose of egg fertilization and birth-giving, the

> nurturing of one's children is most assuredly a reproductive strategy.

That's true, but that in turn really misses the point. Becuase every single

heritable human characteristic can be said to have the ultimate cause of

either reproducing, or increasing the chance of offspring's survival. In that

case, it is just silly to make comments implying that *anything* human has

reproduction as it's purpose, because it isn't, then, uniquely true of anything.

> Third, it's undoubtedly useful to distinguish between behaviors like child

> nurturing, which are directly evolved strategies, and traits which emerge

> accidentally due to, say, environmental factors like malnutrition (and even

> many responses to malnutrition are " evolved for " ) or the interaction

> between other traits. Perhaps the ability to enjoy orgasms via mechanisms

> with absolutely no theoretical reproductive capacity is such an

> accident.

Due to malnutrition? Doubtful. It is my understanding that these capacities

are universal.

As with my first point, when it comes to rights and laws and

> social stigmas, so what?

Umm, I agree. But where in my statements or in the subject line do you see

anything relating to those questions?

> Evolution also suggests another way of looking at these stigmas. In

> small-scale tribal societies, the success of the tribe is generally very

> important to the success of the individual. (In fact, the same is true of

> large-scale societies, but in different ways.) It wouldn't surprise me if

> small-scale tribes in a primitive environment often can't *afford* to lose

> reproductive capacity to widespread homosexuality practiced instead of

> heterosexuality, regardless of the actual prevalence of homosexuality

> itself. Hence a stigma against homosexuality -- and a resultant pressure

> on gays to stay in the closet -- may actually be an evolutionary strategy

> that, just as in-group/out-group morality, is suited to tribal life but not

> to the much-larger-circle character of life in modern civilization.

That's an interesting point, but how do you reconcile it with the survival of

societies where homosexuality was an accepted practice and even involved in

coming of age rituals?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/19/04 8:41:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> Yes sex occurs for reasons other than reproduction but the problem with

> your reasoning is that you are not addressing why. It is by our biology, that

> varying areas in situations can cause stimulation and pleasure. If sex did

> not feel good, few would spend much time engaged in such activity thus greatly

> decreasing the chances of reproduction occurring in the manner in which it

> does for our species.

That's true. But that only, from an evolutionary perspective, explains

vaginal orgasm for a woman, and penal orgasm for a man. It doesn't explain anal

orgasms for either, or clitoral orgasms for women. While reproduction is

involved in the evolutionary etiology of sexuality, clearly there are other

strong

factors. Perhaps sexual pleasure just leads to happiness and a more productive

and longer life, or leads to greater tenacity between couples, leading to a

higher survival rate for children.

Any human trait that evolved must have some relation to the production or

survival of offspring in some way. But while the ability of vaginal intercourse

between a man and a woman can be explained simply by reproduction, many other

facets of sex cannot, thus showing that OTHER factors, completely independent

of mere reproduction, also played a role in the evolution of sex.

Ever heard the term " sex drive " ? Again, you have to understand the

physiology

> occurring during the process of sexual activity for humans. You cannot

> simply touch an errogeous zone and get orgasim.

I never implied this.

All these activities you are referring to is called foreplay which occurs

before

> intercourse.

No, it doesn't always occur before vaginal intercourse, and most of them can

lead to orgasms by themselves. Again, anal stimulation can lead to an ORGASM.

So, it could *replace* sexual intercourse, not simply lead to it as

foreplay.

Not that it would matter anyway. The reason we use these as foreplay is

because they are pleasurable. If they weren't pleasurable, and vaginal

intercourse were, we would go straight for the vaginal intercourse.

This usually starts before even touching with the flirting process. It then

> progresses with touching, kissing, etc. As it progresses, the body is

> making changes, temperatures rise, particular hormones are increased, heart

rates

> increase, etc. - biological processes designed to acheiving an end -

> fertilization. This is why you get the birth control before you start the

activities

> - the innate drives can become overpowering such that better judgment or

> desire to not get pregnant gets ignored. Mother nature gets her way dispite

> your intentions.

I don't see how this addresses the points I made. And these hormones are

also released during infertile periods.

The fact we have learned to manipulate it as you say, I don't think is

really

> evolution.

I didn't say it was. I made two separate points. One was that certain

sexual characteristics of humans clearly rooted in biology have no reproductive

value. A separate point was that our sexual desire has developed into an

independent phenomenon that we have the capacity to satisfy independently of

reproduction.

It has more to do with the development of reliable birth control methods

such as

> the pill and our capacity for intellect and desires for pleasurable

> feelings, that says, hey we can do this really fun thing as we have improved

the

> odds of not having to suffer the potential consequences.

Yes, and we have evolved that intellect and capacity for desire of pleasure

for pleasures sake, and that is as " natural " as reproduction. This intellect

and desire for pleasure for pleasure's sake is part of what it means to be

human, is entirely natural, and is in no way directly associated with

reproduction. That's my point.

> It was presented by others that biologists (or scientists) have established

> that homosexuality is biological and therefore normal. My point was that

> this was not what biologists say. Biology is the study of processes. In line

> with that area of study and thought, sex is the process by which reproduction

> is achieved.

I've never seen a biologies that asserted that sex could be reduced to such

an empty definition. No serious biologist would take one small aspect of sex

and pretend that that is its full definition.

> Reproduction is why we are designed to have sex.

It's how sex per se initially evolved. But it isn't how we developed a very

complex sexuality that involves emotional components or orgasms from

activities that have no reproductive value (still leaving the more broad

" sexuality "

aside).

Central nervous systems evolved for basic coordination of mindless body

processes. No reasonable person would assert that the fundamental and sole

purpose

of the human brain is to keep the heart breating, the lungs breathing, and to

adjust muscle tone in response to cranial movements.

> They say every organism exists to reproduce - survival of their species.

No, they don't. I don't know what biology book you're reading, but I suspect

you're misunderstanding it. No biologist can or does claim that biology can

describe the *purpose* of life. To say that an organism *does* reproduce is

not to say that it exists for the *purpose* of reproduction. To say that a

pattern of information contained with a gene has a greater probability of

existing in a similar form in another gene separated by a duration of time if

the

organism that gene is a part of reproduced, is not at all to say that the

*purpose* of life is for one's genes to replicate.

Purpose is a value judgment, and any biologist that expresses a biological

description of the purpose of life ceases for that moment to be a biologist and

becomes a philosopher.

Homosexuality would not be the > normal process to achieve that end.Now if

you want to really argue this, take it up with a biologist, not me as that is n

ot

> my field.

That seems somewhat evident, given what you say above.

>

> This word " normal " is a problem here - it is all the connotative

> associations that go with it that I think upset people. And I think those

connotations

> are more so due to psychology - not biology. Just because the biologist

> would say it was not normal, it does not follow that there is moral judgement

> being made, that is right or wrong, you should or should not do it, there is

any

> more or less value of the human life, whatever.

I absolutely agree. I'm not making any moral judgments; I'm disputing your

scientific views on a scientific, not a moral, basis.

As is indicating, there is another intellectual process to get to

that. Now,

> from what all knowledge I have gathered to date from various and asundry

> places, it is silly to separate reproduction from sex or sexuality.

Clearly they have relations betwen them, but just as our brain has evolved to

be much more complex than the basic survival values it offered to the first

bearer of a central nervous system, sex has evolved to be much more complex

than the basic reproductive values it offered the first sexually reproducing

organism.

Likewise, it is downright silly to judge the naturalness of a THOUGHT based

on its ability to maintain various homeostases maintained by the brain stem--

as silly as it would be to judge the naturalness of a sexuality based on its

ability to render an egg fertilized.

Again, I would attribute such ideas to psychology, particularly Freud. You

> certainly can do it, it is done, but I think it is what was saying

> is the opposite of what we need to be doing now, which is integrating the

> knowledge of science into our understanding of determinations of morality.

We should do that, but it's irelevant to this particular point. I'm simply

taking issue with the one statement you made regarding the naturalness of

sexuality being determined by its ability to lead to reproduction. That's not a

moral concern.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/20/04 2:34:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> makes the case that there is a biological basis for *morality* which

> is in absolute disagreement with most religions, which hold that morality

> is somehow absolute. For instance, the injunction against " fornication "

> makes a lot of sense from a biological point of view (unwanted kids, STD's).

> But if you can show that homosexuality is biological, then you have the

> NEED to have a " new morality " to handle that case, since our current

> morality

> does not take that group of people into account.

I didn't read the article, but this is a non-sequitor. There is evidence for

a genetic basis for psychopathy. Only a moronic morality would conclude on

that basis that pscyhopathy is therefore moral.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

Not to open another can or worms here.Going back to an opening point of this

thread. It was brought up the more male children in Irish families the

higher likelihood the last born males could be homosexual. Having been

brought up Catholic in Massachusetts where the priest, juvenile male sexual

assault scandals began and were most numerous am wondering since if the

research stemmed from the theory that many of the priests involved are Irish

with youngest put into the priesthood as mentioned. Boston has a large,

quite strong, religiously connected Irish population. Immigration began from

the potato famine.

In contrast, is Canada there has been dissolution through different claims

against the Catholic Church there where it is a French Catholic base. Church

there ran the schools to convert the First Nations, Canadian equivalent of

our Native Americans, children and have become bankrupt in some areas due to

lawsuits for physical and mental abuse of the children during their

operation. Both priests and nuns here. French do the opposite of Irish

putting eldest son into priesthood. Food for thought, observation and no

offense intended with this.

> As for celibacy being a good thing ... the current situation in the

Catholic

> church and priests molesting kids (thousands of cases, it turns out)

> seems to belie that it WORKS very well.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Not having children and working with them doesn't work well sometimes

either. All the books or education there is can't teach the same way

experience can.

> > As for celibacy being a good thing ... the current situation in the

> Catholic

> > church and priests molesting kids (thousands of cases, it turns out)

> > seems to belie that it WORKS very well.

Wanita