Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!nike!think!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!wanginst!vaxine!jww From: jww@vaxine.UUCP (Jeff Walker) Newsgroups: soc.singles Subject: Article relevant to topics discussed in this group Message-ID: <225@vaxine.UUCP> Date: Fri, 19-Sep-86 17:43:27 EDT Article-I.D.: vaxine.225 Posted: Fri Sep 19 17:43:27 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 28-Sep-86 18:45:38 EDT Distribution: net Organization: Automatix, Inc., Billerica, MA Lines: 150 Designer Genes: An Immodest Proposal for Sexual Realignment by Dave Barry What I think happened is, Mother Nature made some kind of terrible error. I am talking about human sexuality. When you look at other species, you notice they have everything worked out. Take squid. I haven't bothered to research this, but I'm willing to bet you that when two squids want to have sex, they know *exactly* how to go about it. Probably the male waves his tentacles in a certain way, and the female emits some kind of noxious chemical compound, and the next thing you know they have their suckers all over each other. Now contrast the effortless suavity of the squid with the sexual behavior of human beings, such as the former hairdresser of my friend Mary Anne. Mary Anne is a television producer who swears that this is an absolutely true anecdote: This hairdresser, whom I will call Jacques, was leaving the area after having done Mary Anne's hair successfully for several years, and he invited her to his house for one last permanent. It was the old "one last permanent" line, and Mary Anne fell for it. Things were fine until Jacques put the traditional foul-smelling permanent chemical on her hair. As you probably know, the next step is to wait for about 20 minutes, during which you're supposed to pick up "Glamour" magazine and read an article entitled "12 Common Mistakes Involving Eyeliner." But instead, without warning, Jacques hurled himself into Mary Anne's lap. She perceived this almost immediately as his concept of a sexual advance. "Jacques," she said. "This is a bad idea." "Submit to me," Jacques replied, "or there will be *no neutralizer.*" Really, he said that. And it was no idle threat. Jacques claimed that unless he neutralized the permanent chemical, Mary Anne would go bald, which could of course be a real disadvantage to a person working in television, a visual medium. Nevertheless, Mary Anne shoved him off her lap and made it clear by word and gesture that he was being a jerk. Eventually, he apologized and went on with the permanent, and according to Mary Anne it came out very nice. The point, obviously, is that this would never, ever, have happened elsewhere in the animal kingdom. But this is only one among billions of bizarre activities we human beings engage in because Mother Nature failed to give us a simple, universal, squidlike ritual to perform when we wish to have sex. What is worse, she made men and women so profoundly different that even if two people do manage somehow to agree that they wish to have sex, they will quickly discover that their purely physical needs differ greatly, in the sense that the amount of time the woman would like to spend in foreplay and lovemaking is roughly equivalent to the amount of time a man would allocate to foreplay, lovemaking, and building a garage. And what is worst of all, even if a man and a woman agree that they want to have sex *and* manage to become comfortable physically, the odds are they will have totally different psychological motivations. Those of you who hate generalizations should leave the room at this time, because I am going to explain briefly how, as I see it, men and women differ in their attitudes toward sex: o Women want sex to be part of a deeper relationship involving commitment, sensitivity to the other's needs, understanding, tenderness, compassion, concern, sharing, and - above all - love. o Men want sex. "Wait a minute," I hear you women saying. "Not *all* men are like that. What about Paul Newman? What about the Pope? What about *Phil Donahue*?" Okay. I will give you those three, and a few others, including of course your Significant Other. But this leaves an awful lot of men who basically attach as much emotional significance to the actual sex act as they do to flossing their teeth. Less, in fact, as we are learning more and more every day about the dangers of gum disease. The vast psychological difference between men and women is the most troublesome of all, because it unfortunately tends to make women think that men have the moral standards of restroom bacteria. Talk to a single woman, and she will tell you about how usually when she dates a male for the first time, he makes a little speech wherein he says that at this point in his life he really does not wish to get involved in a relationship in which he is expected to live with the other person or date the other person exclusively or even necessarily remember the other person's name, but he is nevertheless willing to have sex. Single women call this The Speech, and often when they describe it they stick their fingers partway down their throats to indicate how it makes them feel. And of course they are right. This truly is repulsive behavior. From their perspective. But that is exactly the problem: their perspective is that of what might as well be a different species altogether. It is as if the blue whale, which mates for life, were criticizing the sexual habits of the dragonfly, which goes through the whole sexual process - meeting, courting, Doing It, and breaking up - without even bothering to land. Clearly something must be done. The human race has stumbled along for too many thousands of years under the present system, and it has resulted in too many misunderstandings, heartbreaks, divorces, homicides, and totally unnecessary hairdresser attacks. What can be done, you ask? No doubt you have read articles about how biologists are manipulating genes. The problem is, they're always doing this to life forms that already work just fine, such as cows. As far as I know, there are no major sexual problems with cows. It is *people* who need a major redesign. So I am proposing that we create a committee of reputable biologists, from both sexes, and ask them to see if they can't whip up a sexually compatible version of the human race. We could have a panel of prominent citizens advising the biologists on moral issues, taking care to avoid citizens who had a particular sexual ax to grind, such as Hugh Hefner or Phyllis Schlafly, because you could end up with a very kinky version of the human race that, for example, wanted to have sex all the time, but only with Republicans. Assuming we take reasonable precautions, I think genetic manipulation is the way to go. I can think of no greater gift to give to future generations than to put both sexes on exactly the same sexual wavelength, so that everybody could tell instantly who wanted to have sex with whom, and it would always last the perfect length of time and be absolutely terrific for both of them. Or all six of them, depending on what the biologists work out. I think we should keep an open mind about this. The important thing is that we get rid of the sexual hassles that have obsessed the human race since the dawn of civilization, that have totally dominated our music, our art, our literature, our conversations, our thoughts, our dreams, and our very souls so we can get on with what we were really put on earth to do. Whatever the hell THAT is. ....................... "SDI: its not just for defense anymore" -Jeff Walker mail: linus!encore!vaxine!jww flames: Type them in with your favorite editor. Hitch one end of an RS232 cable to a serial port on your system, and the other end, stick in your ear. Then use cat to copy to the appropriate /dev/tt.