From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Fundamentalists and the clitoris
Date: 18 Nov 92 06:24:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Nov18.062444.5112
Reply-To: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <1992Nov17.221334.19904@netcom.com> solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M. Solovay) writes:

[about the lack of function for clitorises, male nipples]
>I say this because in almost every mammal species, male nipples
>and clitorises are *entirely* nonfunctional, since they are not
>stimulated by sexual contact. I thought I made that adequately
>clear in my posting...

I must have missed this part. I'm mostly interested in the various
things bits of anatomy do in people.

>I said there was no *evolutionary* purpose; by which I meant, when
>they arose, they had no adaptive value. That was all I meant by
>"evolutionary purpose".

I see why you say this, but I think it's a misconception about
evolution. This is not particularly motss relevant, and I won't say it
again, but I'll say it once. 

First, you are not in a position to judge whether nipples on men and
clitorises on women have adaptive value or not. On what scientific
basis can you make that claim? Sure, my nipples don't have the obvious
adaptive value - they don't lactate. Sure, clitorises don't have the
obvious adaptive value - they don't ejaculate or urinate. But adaptive
value is a much more subtle concept than this. Don't you think there
is adaptive value in sex being pleasurable for women? Remember, humans
don't go into heat/rut (certainly not on the same order of magnitude
as most other mammals)

Second, talking about "evolutionary purpose" is very dangerous. Look
up the word "teleology" in your dictionary. It's not even clear that a
statement as innocuous as "the purpose of evolution is to maximize
adaptive value" is safe. Not so much because that statement is
trouble, but because it relies on a very careful definition of
"adaptive value", and in particular it shifts your need to be wary of
teleology from the word "purpose" to the phrase "adaptive value".

>>In this particular case, you come off sounding like a misogynist and
>>an idiot.
>Strange how quickly soc.motss degrades into ad hominem comments and
>attacks.

I'm puzzled by this characterization. I post twenty lines explaining
the trouble in your argument, and two lines indicating that (IMHO) you
sounded like "a misogynist and an idiot". This is degrading into ad
hominems? I do admit that the wording was rather strong, but I was
intending irony to your .signature.

Why do I say "misogyny"? Because you sounded to me like you were
arguing for the insignificance of the clitoris, that it's not
"evolutionarily significant". Independent of the status of claims
about "evolutionary significance", any smug arugment about the
unimportance of pieces of female sexual anatomy is troublesome.

I'm trying very hard to be polite here, because I think you (Andrew)
mean well. But you've touched on two very different issues that I
think are very important. People frequently misunderstand evolution.
People frequently (more so in the past) discount the importance of
female sexuality. You've done both of these things, and I think it's
important to point out these fallacies.

Respectfully,
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/                  Where do you conceal the gun in a bikini?
Newsgroups: soc.motss,soc.bi