the excitement of the nerve endings sparks the ejaculation, it just so happens that it feels good.
tw On 3/13/06, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tony, you need to go back and read a little more on the theory. > > Our gear is obviously for our enjoyment. Otherwise, there would not be > so many nerve endings around there. And no one would do it. The urge > to have children is seldom what drives the mating process. It is the > enjoyment. My neighbor's cat is not aware that having sex might result > in kittens. (Nor, from all evidence, is my neighbor.). He does it, > from all auditory evidence, for the sheer enjoyment. He also fights > alot for that priviledge. He has the scars to prove it. He is also a > mean old cat. I would bet that most of the toms he is fighting now are > his kids or grandkids. If you could ask him, I am sure he would not > mind at a little less competition. > > Did you know that sickle cell anemia and hemophelia are actually > beneficial mutations in humans? They both have a very specific > purposes. They are great for people who get it from their parent. But > woe to those who get it from both parents. Bad things happen. > > We are not far enough down the evolutionary science path to understand > all the mechanisms that effect survival, and speciation for the most > part is a very long process. > > If it turns out that most people who are gay are so due to nature, > then the question becomes - is it a good trait (helping survival), a > bad trait (hurting long-term survival) or neutral (doesn't effect > survival). Mostly this question can just be answered by the survivors > looking back at their own history, not yet something we can predict. > Only time will tell. > > On 3/13/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > what benefit evolutionarily? really. > > one less rooster to hound then hens? > > if they were the majority, then they > > wouldnt procreate, and then they would go > > on as a species. survival of the fittest and > > all that requires procreation to keep the good > > genes moving along. mutations in sexual > > preference would lead men to desire men > > and women to desire women. since the bottom > > line is, our gear is naturally for procreation, > > and not for our enjoyment. although we have > > bastardized it to be an enjoyment tool (not that > > i mind one bit) but thats what i see. > > tw > > > > > > On 3/13/06, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Not really. Evolution is applied to groups as well, it may be to the > > > group's advantage to have one or more gay members. Their genes are > > > still passed along - it may not be their genes directly, rather their > > > siblings etc. get passed along. > > > > > > larry > > > > > > On 3/13/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > but after all of this hullaballoo isnt odd, that men have this part, > > > > and women have > > > > this part, and they work well together. in the grand scheme of > > > > things, doesnt that > > > > seem to be the "right" way? not that i dont think there could be > > > > mis-wirings mentally > > > > that lead some in one direction vs. another, but when a huge portion > > > > of the population > > > > goes that way, and not the other way, and that same huge portion of > > > > the population has > > > > part "a" that goes with part "b", doesnt it make the "gay" way, a > > > > little wrong, evolutionarily > > > > speaking? > > > > > > > > if that were the case, and we all went that way, we would become > > > > extinct. so, i just dont > > > > get it. its weird, its not natural, and its not normal. > > > > > > > > tw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:199864 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
