[Marxism] Clitoris, orgasm and Darwinism

[Brian James <bajames@xxxxxxx>]

Ken Ranney wrote:

> Orgasm is not required for procreation; hence it could not have come from
> Darwinian selection, which produces only the bare (pun not intended)
> essentials....
> Birds, dogs and other mammals do it quickly, why should we not?  I seem to
> recall that Darwin said that  natural selection wastes nothing, and orgasm
> is clearly a waste.

This is silly and reductionistic to the point of absurdity.

A female who actually enjoys sex is far more likely to be enjoyed by a
male of the same species on those long nights around the fire after the
necessities of survival have been accumulated. I somehow don't think the
simple in-out in-out, just here to read the meter, wham bam thank you
mam, would have been satisfactory for our intelligent ancestors any more
than it is for (most) modern humans. Human intelligence after all
co-evolved over hundreds of thousands of years with all sort of complex
behaviours that don't directly represent a survival or strictly
procreational instinct. May as well argue that the human drive to
produce art and religion is anti-darwinian!

> I will be even more convinced than
> I am that this is a chink in the armour of Darwinism.

Not at all, though it may be a chink in the armour of evolutionary
psychology and selectionist reductivism, which the mainstream of
darwinism rejects.

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism