Subject:
|
Re: Animal reproduction (was (of course?) Terms and Conditions Question)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 May 1999 16:05:34 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
C576653@CCLABS.MISSOURIspamcake.EDU
|
Viewed:
|
1005 times
|
| |
|
|
Linc Smith wrote:
>
> Christopher L. Weeks <c576653@cclabs.missouri.edu> wrote in message
> news:37384BDE.5D95685C@cclabs.missouri.edu...
> > Ed Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I disagree - the majority of mammals have sex only to procreate. The • females
> > > of most species will only allow sex when they are "furtile". The males • of most
> > > species still have the ability to determine when the female is in • "heat".
> > >
> > > Only the higher-order mammals have sex for pleasure.
> >
> > The way I read this, it sounds like you think the critters know that
> > reproduction is the outcome of their sex act. I don't think that's so.
> > I agree that it's instinctually and hormonally driven, but I think the
> > female allows and the male engages in intercourse because it feels good.
>
> I think that Ed is writing in a style that is used when discussing
> evolutionary life strategy. An organism's actions (evolved over
> evolutionary time) are sometimes spoken of as though the organism had some
> role in deciding what path it took, or what it now instinctually does --
> this is of course not the case
This _may_ be, and I understand the style and its purpose, but since the
conversation is about personal motivation for animals to engage in
homosexual behavior, that frame of reference is inappropriate.
> Over evolutionary time, those animals that used sex only
> for reproduction were more successful.
Are you asserting this, or are you asserting that this is what he meant?
We seem to have done OK evolutionally, but I guess that we've been
using sex for non-reproductive (pleasure) stuff for long enough to call
it 'evolutionary time.'
> I agree that there is a motivation
> for reproduction (perhaps pleasure; although I have doubts on the stability
> and viability of this mechanism for a majority organisms).
What about when limited to Mammals, rather an all organisms? Most
organisms (by biomass), reproduce my mistake (I mean with no conscious intent).
> I agree with your term "because it feels good", but this can mean many
> things.
Agreed. I'm not suggesting that the rest of Mammalia feels exactly what
we do during intercourse. (I wouldn't even suggest that y'all feel what
I do...how would I know?)
> A disadvantage of using pleasure as a driving force for reproduction, is
> that in nature, inopportune pregnancy depletes an organism's resources, is
> inefficient, usually unsuccessful and possibly fatal.
Sure, and that's why females have cycles of estrous, right? It's only
pleasurable for them at certain times. Times when it will yield babies
at the right time. (Except that cats living under my porch who had a
litter in midwinter who froze and stunk on thaw.)
> As well, pleasure as a motivational mechanism, has costly biological
> overhead. I feel that in general, an evolutionary effort is made to limit
> sex (reproduction) rather that encourage it.
Well, there are lots of reproductive strategies, they work
differentially in different circumstances. Typically, an organism must
concentrate on fecundity or survival, right?
And, again, it doesn't seem like an issue of evolution since (I think)
we're debating the role of animals in the argument of whether
homosexuality is natural. Although at this point I guess I'm kind of
losing steam.
> "Jesse R. Long" wrote:
> >
> > Using animals to support homosexuality is
> > difficult, as homosexuality is about preferring males over females,
> > either for sexual pleasure or for companionship (with sexual
> > overtones). Animals use sex for mating, and no more (although there
> > may be a claim for higher-order thinking among chimps).
But I still say that Mammal psychology (except humans) uses sex for
satisfaction (pleasure) not for reproduction. It is purely coincidence
from the individual point of view that active reproducers are the only
ones who've stood the test of time - and that's the only reason they
exist.
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
150 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
