Sathanas

is this http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=472 yer theory, Joan Manuel Rodriguez Nunez ?

well , too little of a discussion,

the theory, as it asserts normative homosexuality among humans through 'non existence of sexual instinct', essentially negateting the need for male female interactions.

i have questions

1. does human sexual instinct exist ?

2. the existence of two distinct sexes, is , perhaps itself human sexual instinct, isn't it ?

the difference between physical and mental aspects of both the sexes may be is an ' 'instinct' like ' itself i.e the opposite sexes should have greater curiosity of exploration, therefore greater drive towards each other and attraction, after all attraction is continued curiosity. and i base this upon on genders, i do think gender has much too do with current sex than what is going in brain.

3. and is recreational sex between male and female possible, without using any external contraception ?

the author uses this to establish higher homosexual interactions than heterosexual ones. derives the result - normative homosexuality

{ though intelligence, thinking ability, is too natural extenstion, and i suppose invention of condoms is natural too, as opposite sex gives more 'thrills', another step towards complexity, greater interactions with the other of species. }

and i suppose maybe the whole theory is built up on like this :

'no' sexual instinct in humans,

same sexes being like minded ,

have more chances of interactions ( essentially overlooking the fact curiosity towards opposite sex )

no natural contraception, therefore no recreational heterosexuality ( prepubersent female bonobos have sex with older males and about sex after menopause )

( i personally donot think ejaculation is much of a involuntary process )

so,

I was passing by,

and I saw it there,

I am perpelexed.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.humansexualevolution.com

The theory of human sexual evolution appearing on this website was first published in two installments in the Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association in 2000 (True Nature – A Theory Of Human Sexual Evolution, C. Gomes, JGLMA Vol.4, No.1 and JGLMA Vol.4, No.2)

...

...

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

now, can anyone tell me whether this is right or wrong or both ?

The microscopic organisms exchange genetic material through contact.

This thread can be closed.

The program that it writes doesn't have to be a complex one -- it would just be a starting point, then the program's creations could become increasingly more complex in the years thereafter.

Because a computer cannot think.

It does not make a lot of sense to me. Typically libido refers to the desire for sexual activity. In asexual reproduction you have, by definition, no sexual act. So how can there be any interpretation of sexual drive in this context? You would have to define cellular division as an sexual act then, which makes no sense on many layers (e.g.absence of sexual recombination). So no, it certainly follows a weird train of thought that are not in line with the usual definitions.

 

Also it weirdly reminds of some weird posts that were around here a while ago...

I agree with you.

This thread was started by a certain person who claims sex-attractions being dominant and primary than opposite-sex attarctions. He claims procreation is distortion of "sexual drive". He claimed that men are in general attracted to other men, not to women ( this is the reason he claimed sexual dimorphism being secondary than "sexual" drive ). The same sex attractions can never be primary in terms of evolution as they cannot lead to reproduction. According to me opposite sex attractions are must, otherwise species cannot exist.

The case of same-sex attractions being more dominant than opposite-sex attractions, in sexual orgasnisms maybe true but the most important attractions are between opposite sex organism these lead to reproduction. While same-sex attraction may exist or not exist they are not as important as compared to opposite attractions. Thus opposite sex attractions are primary while all others are secondary.

The 'drive' he reffered cannot be sexual as sex leads to its most important function reproduction, but the organisms that indulge in this certain 'drive' may try to assert their dominance.

" In fact all animal species have evolved from the stage where there were no distinct male and female, and the reproduction was asexual. Sexual drive was present even then – apparently because it serves an important biological purpose. E.g. strong sexual drive is found amongst species that have not yet achieved sexual dimorphism. There are either only females or a hermaphrodite being, but sex still takes place throughout the year --- unlike in male-female sex which is only when procreation is required.

Thus sexual drive precedes sexual dimorphism. These are clear evidences that nature chose sex as a means to reproduce by either diverting a small part of sexual urge (already present for same-sex) into male-female mating, or by creating an urge to reproduce. "

If this is true then it would mean all the species have intelligence, that the same-sex attractions developed are not natural, they should be intentional. The phenomenon of same-sex attraction can also be defined as parasitic in nature i.e. the a single orgasnism for its survival depends on another orgasnism.

It does not make a lot of sense to me. Typically libido refers to the desire for sexual activity. In asexual reproduction you have, by definition, no sexual act. So how can there be any interpretation of sexual drive in this context? You would have to define cellular division as an sexual act then, which makes no sense on many layers (e.g.absence of sexual recombination). So no, it certainly follows a weird train of thought that are not in line with the usual definitions.

 

Also it weirdly reminds of some weird posts that were around here a while ago...

Can you point me those posts ?

" In fact all animal species have evolved from the stage where there were no distinct male and female, and the reproduction was asexual. Sexual drive was present even then – apparently because it serves an important biological purpose. E.g. strong sexual drive is found amongst species that have not yet achieved sexual dimorphism. There are either only females or a hermaphrodite being, but sex still takes place throughout the year --- unlike in male-female sex which is only when procreation is required.

Thus sexual drive precedes sexual dimorphism. These are clear evidences that nature chose sex as a means to reproduce by either diverting a small part of sexual urge (already present for same-sex) into male-female mating, or by creating an urge to reproduce. "

is this true ?

this is the thread http://www.sciforums.com/threads/heterosexuality-is-unnatural.50083/

???