Re: [Marxism] Clitoris, orgasm and Darwinism

[Moussa Traore <gtmous@xxxxxxxxx>]

I guess Ken is kidding when he says that females need
not enjoy sex.They might rise up against us and that
may create division among us activists. We all need to
enjoy it.
Redishly,
MOUSSA




 --- Ken Ranney <kranney@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> At 09:16 AM 28/01/2005, Brian James wrote:
> >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.
>
>
>
> Females enjoy sex even without orgasm, which is for
> both sexes simply icing
> on the cake, and has the look of a gift from nature
> or??? rather than an
> essential part of reproduction.  Arguably females
> need not enjoy sex and
> many conceive without enjoyment
>
> >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.
>
> "Satisfactory" has no place in survival.  What
> counts, as in capitalism,
> (amazing the correlation between capitalism and
> survival a la Darwin, as
> Jeremy Rifkin loves to point out!) is outdoing the
> competition, in this
> instance in the number of progeny produced.  If
> Darwin was right, the
> wham-bam man would have had more time for the
> arduous business of survival
> and should have produced more off-spring than the
> man who took time,
> provided that he could ejaculate frequently.  Such
> men do exist.  We are
> informed by Kinsey that "a scholarly and skilled
> lawyer has averaged over
> 30 [ejaculations] per week for thirty years".  The
> combination of wham-bam
> and prodigious sexual ability would have demanded
> polygamy to increase the
> genes of our hero, and this is exactly what should
> have occurred.
>
> With polygamy, the relative scarcity of women would
> inevitably produce
> competition, another feature of Darwinism, among the
> men.  The result of
> the competition would be to improve the features of
> men which are desirable
> to women.  If women, as is commonly alleged,
> (usually by male writers of
> television comedies)1 like large penises, then
> competition among men should
> have developed men with humongous penises eons ago
> rather than the
> relatively small penises observed in Greek statues.
> What is alleged to be
> a woman's greatest disappointment on the wedding
> night would no longer
> (though no doubt it would be longer) be
> disappointing.  Similarly with
> handsome faces, tallness, muscular bodies, etc.  The
> less successful would
> leave far fewer children to carry on their genes, so
> would be eliminated
> from the world.  Competition among men for wives
> would be fierce..  Only
> the men most attractive to women, probably even
> charismatic, and the
> physically strongest, would be successful.  Darwin
> has anticipated this
> with his statement:
>
> With animals having separated sexes there will in
> most cases be a struggle
> between the males for possession of the females. The
> most vigorous
> individuals, or those which have most successfully
> struggled with their
> conditions of life, will generally leave most
> progeny. But success will
> often depend on having special weapons or means of
> defence, or on the
> charms of the males; and the slightest advantage
> will lead to victory.
>
>
> >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!
>
> "The human drive to produce art [not religion] is
> [indeed]
> anti-darwinian!  You might have included
> mathematics, humour and music in
> your statement, for there is no Darwinian
> explanation for these either.
>
> Religion is quite different.  As far as I can tell,
> all religions have
> their basis in the state, though the Jesus was an
> anarchist, and it took
> several centuries before the perversion of his ideas
> into what we call
> Christianity today.
>
>
> > > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism mailing list
> Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
>

=====
Moussa Traore
PhD Candidate
English Department
Illinois State University

mtraore@xxxxxxxxx
gtmous@xxxxxxxxx





        

        
                
Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 250 Mo d'espace de stockage pour vos mails !
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com/

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