From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Fundamentalists and the clitoris
Date: 21 Nov 92 23:07:23 GMT


GAK.. I almost never even READ postings that start with a full screen of
quoted text...

Responding to responses of response kinda forces you to ahve to though.
SO..
 I put these disclaimers in front to soothe my conscience.

In article <1992Nov20.063447.5919@macc.wisc.edu>, 
anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
 
> >In article <Bxv786.DAp@fig.citib.com>, glp@fig.citib.com
> >(Greg Parkinson) writes
> >>I hate it when human sexuality gets compared to and defined
> >>using lower animal behaviors.  Human sexuality is a
> >>complicated and subtle thing, and human sexual desires and
> >>needs and expression cannot be explained simply in terms of
> >>the "functional" penis and "non-functional" clitoris.
 
> In article <17964@autodesk.COM> owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen
> Rowley) writes:
> >But sexuality has evolved from our animal ancestors like all
> >of our other aspects.
 
> Don't you think a *very* large "but" attends the word "like"
> in that pronouncement?  We have animal precursors that
> copulate.  But do they have sexuality?  Do even the other
> primates have sexuality?  

I'm having a hard time understanding your question.
I think its best to not use the *Don't you think* strategy with me
Jess, because it just doesn't seem to often be the case that
you and I think similarly. Yes I know I used it on you, but I 
reserve the right to learn from my errors.

If I've parsed your point correctly, I'd have to say, no.
I tend to think that *other* animals do have sexuality, and I definiltly 
think other primates have very similar sexuality to us.
Note, I said *other* animals, we *ARE* animals, well ... I am when
properly stimulated :-)
 
> Our sexuality may well have a broad basis in the
> reproductive and other copulatory actions of the species
> from which we arose, but I think it is far too sweeping a
> statement to claim that either sexuality or all our other
> aspects have evolved from earlier species.  

Well a bit more clearly put, but again, I disagree. I'd say that
the broad basis commonality is lots broader than you indicate.

> For one thing, it seems too deterministic.  

Well, we've banged heads on this one before Jess.
Clearly I take a much more deterministic POV about the biological
systems and the link to behavior than you do.

> For another, it allows for no
> spontaneous adaptations in our species to conditions that
> simply do not exist for other species, largely as a result
> of our cortical development.

I don't buy this argument. I tend to think that when we see no
allowance or possibilities based on our understanding of the
broad spectrum of possibilities, it is our short sightedness and
limitations that are the operative factor. Too often we find 
ourselves faced with discoveries we thought to be impossible. 

> >Clearly there is room for the wide view, wouldn't you agree?
 
> But Owen, there's wide, wider and way too wide, especially
> since there are so many features unique to human beings.

Well , I didn't say there was only one wide view, and that I
owned it? I would say that there are different observational
aspects from each viewpoint. This points out a real difference in how
each of us arrives at our respective opinions. I've noticed that 
I seem to be more comfortable with shifts in the dynamics of 
my thought process than most other people I meet. I find that
most folks have a lower threshold of tolerance for chaos than I.

I'm talking about Chaos in the sense of chaotic systems in the
natural world. I can reccomend a program to help others achieve
my level of understanding vis a vis this issue, but not publicly
:-)

> Moreover, I think your point is only tangentially relevant
> to Greg's.  It seemed to me he was talking about those
> factors that have no real analog in our precursors, and

No real analogue? Perhaps no real analogue that has been yet 
discovered?

Have you looked into the stuff about the bonobos Jess?
I find it dificult to believe that you could miss the
significance of the recent discoverys regarding them?

> whatever else one might speculate about the nature of our
> sexuality, there's a signficant portion that is simply not
> addressed by such concepts as "function" in our genital
> parts.

Oh really, what are they, I must be missing something?

> >I find the social POV that sex organs are holy and that what
> >you do with them or how you do it should be governed by
> >religious dogma infinitly more disturbing than the POV that
> >these organs and their function are determined by biological
> >formulas.
 
> Though the religious dogma view also disturbs me more than
> the biological determinism view, both views seem close to
> equal in the *immense* distance by which they fail to
> account for the behaviors.

Again, I do take a very deterministic POV regarding what I see
as the chemical nature of consciousness and behavior.
obviously this is a very big difference between our POV's.

> >>There are so many basic differences (a big one being that
> >>human females do not change appearance when they are in a
> >>fertile period) that comparisons like this are specious.
> >um, there are some very real changes in women that can be
> >measured.
 
> Um, he said changes in appearance.  You're saying *those*
> can be measured?  Swelling of the breasts, maybe, fluid
> retention?  Is that what you mean?  

Yes those are observable cues, right?
lets change *observable* to *detectable*, we tend to forget 
that sight is not our only sense, just the dominant one.
Scent is another sense, and at the risk of incuring rath
I maintain that scent cues and pheromones are a significant
part of the sexual spectrum. 

> Temperature, hormonal
> changes, and things like that are not apparent to the eye of
> the beholder (though indeed they can be very apparent to the
> woman during the fertility cycle).

I'm trying not to be insensitive, but once again, there are
scent clues to womens hormonal cycles. They may be vestigal
but they may not.

> >I think what you mean is that human reproduction is not
> >intrinsicly tied to an estrus cycle, but that factor is not
> >unique to our species.
> 
> I miss the relevance here.  What do you mean?

Some animals have an estrus cycle which involves the entire reproductive
system being tightly coupled, and timed to occur during seasons
which result in the offspring having maximum survivability time
in infancy.
Becaus ethe human reproductive process is de-coupled from 
an estrus cycle, women ovulate all year round, and pregnancy is not
bound to seasonal cycles.

Humans are not the only animals so de-coupled
Dolphins for example.
I seem to remebre reading that dolphins also engage in 
non reproductive sex for pleasure too ?

LUX ./.  Dr. owen 

--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen

  " It will be a cold March 17th that I celebrate the imposition of
	Romes rule, on Pagan Ireland. Erin go ppphhhhhttttttt! "
Newsgroups: soc.motss