From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Reproduction is universal to all species, but not all individuals of
some
species, and reproduction does not automatically mean sex. As far as
human
beings are concerned, sex does not necessarily imply reproduction.<<
...and sex does not necessarily imply 'nasty activity to be avoided and censured, contrary to social mores of the past few centuries.
I'd be interested to know why you felt the urge to say that, and especially in response to me, because I have never said that I consider sex to be 'nasty' and deserving of censure, and I have never said that because I do not believe it. You're jumping to conclusions and imbuing me with beliefs I simply do not hold.
And it's 'Homo sapiens' - capital H - not 'homo sapiens'.<<
Where shall I put the gold star on your loose leaf paper?
Several places spring to mind, none of them on my loose leaf paper.
Whatever your intent, your remark came across as an insult, albeit one
not
directed personally at me. Not, incidentally, for suggesting that I was somehow 'unnatural', but for the implication that I am somehow a lesser human being for pursuing an essentially celibate lifestyle.<<
You read something that is completely absent from both my words and my
intent
as an 'insult'. Perhaps you are looking for it where none exists. To what purpose, I cannot imagine.
That you might not have intended an insult I have already acknowledged in the paragraph quoted above. I was pointing out how it might have been construed as such. You are the one accusing me of accusing you of insulting you, when I made no such accusation.
And why are you insinuating that I might have some ulterior motive? Do you imagine that I have?
Most of what human beings do nowadays is not 'natural'. Why else would the phrase 'natural ingredients' be a cause for rare attention, rather than the other way
around?
If I point out that pole vaulting, synchronized swimming and bungee
jumping
is not natural to the human species, have I personally insulted all pole vaulters, synchronized swimmers and bungee jumpers? Geez, if you took it
that
way, I'm sorry for your misimpression.
No, I didn't take it that way, as I thought I had clarified earlier. Yes, most human activity is 'unnatural' (which I pointed out myself). But from recognition of that there arises a body of opinion that promotes the 'natural' as superior and stakes a claim to superiority through pursuit of the 'natural'. Therefore, to say that "If you stop having sex of any kind, you are not behaving in a natural fashion" you run the risk of being associated with this elitist position (whether you personally subscribe to it or not) and hence arousing the ire of those who might feel they have been denigrated for behaving in this particular 'natural' fashion.
Exactly! Thank you for proving my point. None of the above are 'natural',
nor
should those who do any of the above be insulted by the statement of this fact. Why would someone who chooses to behave differently take insult when it's pointed out that they are behaving differently from the natural
design?
When it's pointed out in a manner that appears to belittle them?
Nope, sorry. The discussion is about sexuality and porn. Seizing upon an interest in graphic sexuality between consenting adults of either sex and branding it as 'unnatural' or evil is simply incorrect, because it's been amply demonstrated to be natural.
Once again you seem to be either going off at a tangent or making very rash assumptions about my own personal beliefs. I have never suggested that either sex or pornography are unnatural (in the derogatory sense) or evil, and I'm not sure anyone else on the Lyst has said that outright either. So why bandy these terms around in the first place?
Neil