From: crowboy (crowboy-9@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Wed Dec 08 1999 - 21:51:16 MST
----------
>From: "Harvey Newstrom" <newstrom@newstaffinc.com>
> Robert J. Bradbury <bradbury@www.aeiveos.com> wrote on Wednesday, December
> 01, 1999 2:45 pm,
>
>> I would maintain, that engaging in sexual activities for non-procreation
>> purposes is *unnatural* (i.e. it is not in the direct interest of your
>> genes), unless you are getting paid for it in some way (this may
>> include social contacts, indirect economic benefits, general well being
>> from the "rewards" of physical pleasure, etc.)
>
> Any biologist will tell you that homosexuality is found in all species of
> mammal higher than a cat. Maybe all these species are acting "unnaturally"
> according to your definition, but I would suggest you find a different term.
well, speaking from personal experience, my girlfriend's mother had a
cat (fixed, by the way) that used to regularly engage in sexual activity
with one of the neighborhood skunks. the skunk never seemed to object.
absolutely true, swear to [god].
i don't really see [natural] as a particularly useful description,
except in poetry. all that exists is [natural], because it exists in
[nature]. [nature] includes all that is. as i see it, behavior can be
described as survival-oriented, non-survival-oriented and
irrelevant-to-survival. these descriptions are, of course, situational at
best.
for example: wearing a bulletproof vest in compton at night is
survival-oriented behavior. wearing a "white power" t-shirt in compton is
non-survival-oriented behavior. wearing a grey t-shirt in compton is
irrelevant-to-survival behavior.
in closing, i must say that i think the assumption that all behavior can
be directly correlated with a specific genetic sequence is, to say the
least, premature. we are more than our genes.
--Joe Belmer
"I am a scientist, I seek to understand me." -- Guided By Voices
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:01 MST