Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!bloom-beacon!bu.edu!bu-cs!snorkelwacker!apple!usc!ucsd!hub!6600pete
From: 6600pete@hub.UUCP (Pete Gontier)
Newsgroups: alt.sex
Subject: Re: Sex, Babies, and Orgasm
Message-ID: <3641@hub.UUCP>
Date: 19 Jan 90 03:13:18 GMT
References: <2348@becker.UUCP>
Sender: news@hub.UUCP
Lines: 24

In reference to my posting on the nature of evolution excluding the
possibility that sex is ever "supposed" to be exclusively fun,
Bruce Becker writes:

> 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.

Agreed. But under these ideas, if sex is ever "supposed to be"
exclusively fun, then it's an accident of evolution rather than a
deliberate consequence.

I agree that evolution is whimsical at times. But then in those cases
it's whimsical, not purposeful. The idea I was objecting to was that
there is somehow something in it for evolution to make sex exclusively
for fun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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