Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!midway!quads.uchicago.edu!lecl From: lecl@quads.uchicago.edu (elizabeth e. leclair) Newsgroups: sci.bio Subject: Re: The function of sex? Keywords: Sociobiology, sex, morality, function, adaptations Message-ID: <1991May9.003218.3510@midway.uchicago.edu> Date: 9 May 91 00:32:18 GMT References: <635@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (NewsMistress) Organization: University of Chicago Lines: 118 In article <635@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (John Donald Collier) writes: >An acquaintance of mine, an Italian mathematician, once argued that >birth control was inappropriate because the essential function of >sexual intercourse is reproduction, and to have sex without the >possibility of reproduction violates the essential function of sex, >making the act meaningless, or at least less than wholesome. > >I have tried to make sense of this from a biological perspective, and I >find that things are not at all simple. By definition, the biological >function of any adaptation is to enhance reproduction, but we do not >generally think that the use of an adapatation in a way that might >frustrate reproduction is a violation of the essential nature of the >function. Just for example, time spent thinking about philosophy, >mathematics or music does not directly contribute to reproduction, but >we do not see this (my friend certainly would not) as therefore >unwholesome. The question is, why should sex have this special role, >over and above that of other adaptations? > You have the essential objections already, I think. One might first inquire why we are using the term "violation" in conjunction with an adaptation. This smacks directly of the moral principle which your friend seems to be trying to derive, and is hence the source of some circularity in the argument. For example, there is a humorous piece of writing I saw once which mimics Thomas Aquinas' argument against male masturbation (which was supposedly a "violation" or "waste" of the proper function of seminal fluid), but substitutes saliva for sperm. The argument goes on to say how spitting casually on the ground is a "violation" and a grave moral deviation, since the "function" of saliva is to lubricate your mouth and aid in digestion, and that function is "perverted" when it is spat upon the ground. The act of "having sex" is also not the only thing that "enhances reproduction." One coudl conceivably argue that the entire human body and all of its functions essential to life are therefore enhancing of reproduction. On these grounds, smoking a cigarette would be an unwholesome or "maladaptive" behavior, since smoking could decrease your lifespan or your potential to have viable children, especially if a woman was smoking during pregnancy. >For example, humans are adapted so that ovulation is concealed, thus much >sexual activity serves no direct reproductive function (though, the >essential function may be perserved, since there is at least the >deception in the participants that reproduction is possible). Furthermore, sexual intercourse is the basis for a variety of other >social functions that it is difficult to classify as biologically >perverse without knowing already the biological function of sex, which >is the issue that is in question. > Two things here: 1) What is the "biological function" of sex? This has been argued a lot from various evolutionary perspectives. The immediate function of sex is obviously that of reproduction. There are forms of reproduction, however, which do not involve sex (int he sense of meiosis or gametic mixing). Arguments for the prevalence of sexual reproduction (= sex with meiosis) involve claims for the long-term benefit of increased and changeable variation in the offspring of such organisms which is provided by such mixing. 2) What is "biologically perverse" about contraception? Arguing strictly as a "natural-selection strategist", one might claim tha the only thing that coudl be "wrong" with contraception is that it decreases your reproductive potential-- reproduction potential being the only currency or standard of "goodness" that we will accept. Contraception as used by humans does not demonstrably result in decreased reproductive output. Although many people use contraception to influence that timing and spacing of pregnancies, they do not necessarily have fewer children than they could. It might be possible that spacing out your children with intermittent contraception gives healthier, better babies and a healthier mother than one who is popping kids out all the time. This would be a benefit in reproductive capability. True, socities which practice contraception are often those with decreased birth rates, but this has done nothing yet to limit the reproductive capacity of the human species as a whole. We are still exploding all over the planet, despite individual reproductive restraint by some. In this condition we might imagine that those who use contraception to limit their own reproductive potential to, say, only one child per couple, are enhancign the survivial value of that child by not providing more little brothers and sisters to fill up the planet faster. In the latter case, none of the children might survive the crowded, polluted conditions. In the former, one might survive. One is better than none by any estimation of reproductive fitness. Given these conditions, then, contraception is biologically "smart" and "good", rather than "perverse." >What I am asking is whether there is any biological evidence that sex >has a special function in contributing to reproduction over and above >the way in which all adaptations contribute to reproduction, and if this >justifies the claim that reproduction is uniquely essential to the >biological function of sex in human beings. > I have argued against the first point (contribution to reproduction) above. To put it another way: Sex is a necessary condition for reproduction, but so is a healthy, living body and all its other adaptations. You will not have sex, nor reproduce if you are slow and get eaten by a leopard. To the second claim: Reproduction is a unique outcome of sex, but this says nothing about the quality or morality of alternate outcomes, i.e. pleasure and fun! All those little nerve endings do not have a direct influence on the success of fertilization or reproduction, but they have their own "function." i.e. they react to input like any other Why anyone should deny these little nerves their function anytime conception is being prevented should explain to me why these nerves are wired the way they are. If it was "bad", i.e. a selective disadvantage to have non-procreative sex, then why haven't these wires become *disconnected* in the course of evolution? --My, how *stimulating* this discussion is.... -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Elizabeth E. LeClair [lecl@midway.uchicago.edu] <<<<<<<<<<< My opinions do not reflect those of the University of Chicago. The University of Chicago would DIE to have opinions as enlightened as mine!