home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: soc.motss
- Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!dolores!bob
- From: bob@dolores.Stanford.EDU (Bob Lodenkamper)
- Subject: Re: Fundamentalists and the clitoris
- In-Reply-To: solovay@netcom.com's message of Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:13:34 GMT
- Message-ID: <BOB.92Nov17231710@dolores.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: news@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU
- Organization: Computer Systems Laboratory, Stanford University
- References: <1992Nov16.183813.19959@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
- <1992Nov16.212806.4163@netcom.com> <1992Nov17.002547.2196@reed.edu>
- <1992Nov17.221334.19904@netcom.com>
- Date: 17 Nov 92 23:17:10
- Lines: 23
-
- In article <1992Nov17.221334.19904@netcom.com> solovay@netcom.com
- (Andrew M. Solovay) writes:
-
- What did I say that was inaccurate? In any event, I never said
- there was no purpose to nipples on men, or to clitorises. 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". Again, I don't see how this could be
- taken as a perjorative statement.
-
- "Purpose" and "value" have too many connotations to be used the way
- you want to use them. Also, even if the inappropriate connotations
- are disregarded, the claim you make is much, much, too strong.
-
- Say, rather, that the mechanism(s) by which the clitoris and male
- nipple evolved are as poorly understood as the rest of human evolution
- (i.e. few if any known mechanisms).
-
- Dry, but much more accurate. The original claim is a half-baked mush
- of teleology, inappropriate value judgements, and armchair
- speculation. Not a good mix, I'm afraid.
-
- - Bob
-