home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!ogicse!reed!nelson
- From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
- Newsgroups: soc.motss
- Subject: Re: Fundamentalists and the clitoris
- Message-ID: <1992Nov18.062444.5112@reed.edu>
- Date: 18 Nov 92 06:24:44 GMT
- Article-I.D.: reed.1992Nov18.062444.5112
- References: <1992Nov16.212806.4163@netcom.com> <1992Nov17.002547.2196@reed.edu> <1992Nov17.221334.19904@netcom.com>
- Reply-To: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
- Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR
- Lines: 64
-
- 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?
-