Path: utzoo!censor!geac!becker!bdb
From: bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker)
Newsgroups: alt.sex
Subject: Re: Sex, Babies, and Orgasm
Message-ID: <2348@becker.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jan 90 20:59:20 GMT
References: <8290@portia.Stanford.EDU> <3609@hub.UUCP>
Reply-To: bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker)
Organization: G. T. S., Toronto, Ontario
Lines: 43

In article <3609@hub.UUCP> 6600pete@hub.UUCP (Pete Gontier) writes:
|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.

	Amoeba poop.

	Evolution is a lot busier concept than the
	few notions you attribute to it.

	There are a lot of organisms whose behavior
	don't quite make sense when viewed in such
	a strict fashion. The thing is, they are
	so relatively successful in their so-called
	"niches" that such apparently sub-optimal
	evolutionary behavior has no real effect on
	the species survival.

	There's a *lot* of slack in evolution, so
	a lot of seemingly bizarre and silly stuff
	comes into being, like human sexual behavior.

	Evolution isn't just work, it's also play...

-- 
  ,,,,	 Bruce Becker	Toronto, Ont.
w \$$/	 Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu
 `/c/-e	 BitNet:   BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET
_/  >_	 "Money is the root of all money" - Adam