> Is sex a form of parallel communication? Chris Hind wants to know.
>
> Well, that depends. But if you have the genitals sliding down there, the
> tounges playing across each other up here, hands carressing the back, moving
> through the hair on the head, bodies gliding against each other, engaged in
> an ecstatic dance, each moving and responding the the actions of the other, I
> would call it parallel communication, since there is so much being
> communicated simultaneously.
Much is being said, yet of little value. Sex appeared very early on the
evolutionary theatre. Even the most primitive organisms have sex. I
wouldn't count sex to traits that make us human, rather vice versa.
That sex seems to mean so very much for us, is an artefact of evolution.
Should replication, as it is to be expected, to become detached from
coitus, the act itself is going to become an atavism.
A lovable atavism maybe, yet an atavism nontheless.
'gene
> - David Musick