Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!usc!ucsd!hub!6600pete
From: 6600pete@hub.UUCP (Pete Gontier)
Newsgroups: alt.sex
Subject: Re: Sex, Babies, and Orgasm
Message-ID: <3609@hub.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jan 90 00:50:30 GMT
References: <8290@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@hub.UUCP
Lines: 21

From article <8290@portia.Stanford.EDU>, by alderson@Belarius (Rich Alderson):
> In article <1024@khijol.UUCP>, erc@khijol (Edwin R. Carp) writes:
>>Sex was not designed to produce babies *only*
> 
> Sex was not designed.

This was a relatively blunt reply, but it points up something interesting:

When you look at sex from the perspective of evolution, it loses its
altruistic components. Why on earth would it be more advantageous in
terms of evolution for sex to be, in some instances, exclusively for fun?

It's a drag on energy, it causes momentarily complete vulnerability, and
it takes up time that could be spent on gathering food.

Fun is not an evolutionary advantage. But sex is fun, so what gives?
Sex is fun because reproduction is an evolutionary advantage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Gontier   | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa
Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription
Hire this kid  | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills