In a message dated 3/5/01 3:30:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, N.Faulkner@tesco.net writes:

<< Aside from the fact that 'unnatural' is an adjective rather than a noun, there are plenty of living creatures on Earth for whom it is perfectly natural to abstain from reproduction. Many species of the Hymenoptera form colonies of which the overwhelming bulk of the population consists of sterile females. Among vertebrates, deliberate abstention from reproduction has been recorded in Florida scrub jays and at least one species of mole rat.<<

Yeppers, but these examples are in the vast minority, and we don't belong to any of them. We are homo sapiens, the subject of the discussion at hand, and among primates, our males not only have the largest sexual organs, but we have no reproductive time. As a species, we can breed virtually anytime, anyplace...something few other mammalian species can lay claim to. If we were scrub jays and mole rats, that would most certainly be unnatural. But we ain't.

...

Asexual reproduction is abundant in both animals and plants, including

those plants that have turned to apomixy as an alternative to sexual reproduction. Parthenogenesis is a normal mode of reproduction for many insects of the Phasmida and Hemiptera.<<

And the reason to proudly emulate phasmida and Hemiptera, mole rats and scrubs jays... would be one's own choice, not subject to criticism. But it would still not be the natural intent of the species.

...

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.

...

And it's 'Homo sapiens' - capital H - not 'homo sapiens'.<<

Where shall I put the gold star on your 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.

...

I get enough of that from the macho idiots I work with, when they're in

macho idiot mode (which is thankfully not all the time). There is in fact an awful lot in our lives that is unnatural. Swaddling ourselves in shaped pieces of fabric, including some made from chemically synthesised fibres, is pretty unnatural. So is putting bits of glass in front of our eyes to correct defective vision.<<

Exactly! So why would one regard it as an insult to point out that it isn't natural for the human animal to wear glasses or clothing? Is the alternative true? Why would the truth be some sort of personal insult? 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.

...

I can think of no other creature on Earth that habitually

acquires its food encased in tin-plated steel, cardboard or synthesise polymers through the exchange of metal or paper tokens, nor one that habitually labours fixed hours on a weekly basis, regardless of seasonal changes, for no purpose other than the acquisition of this means of exchange. Nor can I think offhand of any species that devotes large quantities of time to discussion of fictional realities that went out of production over two decades previously.<<

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?

...

There is very little about human beings that is 'natural', so to assert the

imperative of one particular aspect of human behaviour (and one that is *not* necessary to any particular individual) on the basis of it being 'natural' is both thoughtless and presumptive about what it means to be human. >>

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. If one chooses NOT to participate in these interests, they are excersizing their individual taste. Things only become 'unnatural' in the negative sense when they demand that their own taste be imposed on everyone else in their society...whether that society be a nation, or a mailing list.

Leah