NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/motss/48233

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-18 | 5.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!solovay
From: [e-mail] (Andrew M. Solovay)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Fundamentalists and the clitoris
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:44:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov18.174455.1384
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Smiley Abolition Front
Lines: 102

My last posting on this digression, then I drop it.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nelson Minar) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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)

My basis for this claim is that in almost all mammalian species
(by which I mean, non-humans), the normal positions of sexual
intercourse don't stimulate the male's nipples or the clitoris.
Since the only function they have in humans seems to be sexual
pleasure, we must have inherited them from ancestors for whom
they had no adaptive value. In that sense, they are an
evolutionary accident. (As I said, the clitoris is fully
functional in other species in which it is nevertheless not
stimulated by the usual sexual positions; for example, lab rats
have been given clitoral orgasms, but they don't seem to have
them in nature.)

You are right, though, that the clitoris may have adaptive value
in humans. Stipulatiing this, it's still true that our
evolutionary heritage seems to have preserved the clitoris solely
out of inertia up to our recent ancestors, at which point it
gained adaptive value.

>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".

Here I admit to rhetorical sloppiness. I've read a lot of
pop-evolution (Stephen Jay Gould, _The_Selfish_Gene_,
_The_Extended_Phenotype_, etc.) As a result, I regard phrases
like "evolutionary purpose" as a convenient shorthand for
"adaptive value at the time the trait developed". This could
lead someone to misconstrue my arguments as being teleological;
that wasn't how I meant them.

>>>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.

Perhaps I was being unfair to you. But if you look at the other
postings in this thread, you'll see why I'm noticing these ad
hominem attacks. Yours was understandable, since it was at least
commenting on something on my post (my .sig quote). But some of
those others... Whoo boy. (Or should that be "Whoo child"?)

>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.

Hmmm... I made sure to mention male nipples as often as the
clitoris, specifically to avoid that impression. I'm very fond of
my nipples, and I'm glad that capricious evolution gave them to
me. Anyway, as I said, I don't regard evolution as a moral
arbiter.

I think this thread has gotten to irrelevant even for soc.motss;
maybe it ought to die a merciful death now...
--
Andrew Michael Solovay

"We know that Solovay is a misogynist and an idiot..."
                --Melinda Shore