Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Catherine,
    
    Your note was extremely well-written and enlightening.  I could
    never express myself as articulatly on this subject as you have.
    
    You have made some statements based on fact and statements based
    on logic.
    
    I personally belive that sexuality is instinctive.  I can't explain
    instinct but I know I have it especially around sexuality and
    motherhood.  
    
    A woman may be the passive partner in penile-vaginal sex but for
    many of us the desire for this activity is undeniably strong.  I
    have often wondered why for there are other activities that seem 
    to be equally enjoyable.  I attribute this strong desire to instinct
    and an undefined need.  Maybe this is where Lesbian women and Heterosexual
    women differ.  
    
    When I became a mother many of my ways of caring for my child were
    taught by society but I had occasions when I knew instinct was the
    motivation for action.   
                   
    I think there are some real issues around society and how women
    have been allowed to express their sexuality.  But I believe the
    basics are for enjoyment between male and female.  I do not have
    any difficulty understanding the sexuality of homosexuals.  And
    I am unable to discuss this clinically without identifying with
    my own personal experience.
    
    My statement is men and women fit well together.  I think the engineer
    did a good job.  I think society has screwed (pardon the pun) it
    up a little bit...but I think we are doing a good job of working
    that out.  And part of that is knowing that we are not all the same
    and we all don't operate the way the engineer designed us.
    
    $Joyce$
    

    I think there has to be some naturally evolved attraction between
    male and female or a unilateral attraction of one sex towards the
    other to have arrived as a species at this stage of evolution.
    
    This does not rule out homo or auto sexuallity or group indulgence.
    The cultural problems we seem to have with sexual behavior seem
    to be the results of suppressing any or all of the variations to
    some degree or another sometimes in the extreeme.
    
    /Les Slater

    As an aside, it's notes like .0 that cheer and restore me.  Thank
    you, Catherine, and thank you, all of you, for the thought and care
    you put into your notes.
    
    I am poignantly reminded of an evening years ago, with two wonderful
    women friends, when we all turned to each other and said how things
    would be easier if we were lesbian.  No, it wasn't sour grapes time
    about the "jerks" :-) we'd gone out with, you can't trivialize it
    like that, it was about our frustrations about being limited in how 
    we were being allowed to define and explore our own sexuality, how 
    being a centered, aggressive, loving, self-determined sexually, 
    heterosexual woman was a bit like being crazy.  And yet, we were
    just three friends, casually brought together for beer and talk
    and gossip one September New England evening, out of all our large
    circle of acquaintances there was no reason the three of us ought
    to have been talking any more than any other three.  Almost as if
    any three women would have had such a conversation.  I don't mean
    to say all women really want to be lesbians (you can't slip away
    on that one either); I do mean to say that women want
    as much respect as men get for their sexuality.  
    
    If you are strong, you should read Dworkin's _Intercourse_.  It
    is very good.  At times I laughed so at the incongruities.
    But I was in tears for the last few pages.  Dworkin
    is a powerful writer, but no sunny optimist.  Nor a pessimist.
    The questions asked are hard and thought provoking.  But of course
    you are strong: you can borrow my strength for the asking, and my
    company, in sorrow or mirth, is already there.

    
    Were we ever in a position to think about it before?
    
    Let's see if I can make this statement without tripping over myself.
    
    For the bulk of human history, procreation and survival were very
    closely linked.  The more bodies there were around, the better it
    was fo everybody, whether it was to work the land or hunt animals
    or whatever.  This is beyond the simple perpetuation of the species.
    People who also found the acts that resulted in children pleasurable
    were getting a bonus.  Anatomy seems to dictate that men have an
    easier time in this particular area.
    
    However, time, technology, etcetera, have all marched on.  Humanity
    is now in a position where its survival does not depend on the support
    of having a lot of children around to work your farm or hunt the
    animals or whatever.  In fact, we are now at the opposite pole.
    If we don't find a way to cut the birth rate, we're going to have
    a problem.
    
    So now, for the first time, I think the race as a whole can devote
    some serious thought to seperating "reproduction" and "sex".
    
    We are also at the brink of an era where there are viable alternatives
    for perpetuation of the race to traditional intercourse.
    
    However, we have all that racial memory to contend with, and I think
    that is a part of what Catherine is saying.  It is very easy to
    elevate the traditional sex act above the others, for it can result
    in a new life, and none of the others do.
    
    However, it depends on what you are having sex for.  If you're having
    sex to have kids, you'd be hard pressed to beat traditional intercourse
    as a way to get them.  However, if you're having sex for the pleasure,
    then the pedastal gets knocked from beneath traditional intercourse.
    We are only recently in a species in a position to consider this
    idea.
    
    DFW

    So, if people need babies, women's self-respect and self-determination
    be d****d, this is only a matter of consideration during leisure?
    Or is it that all this pleasure men got from making babies has gotten
    us a world-full, now let's sit back and see what the ladies have
    to say; it can't hurt, since what they say about themselves can
    be ignored anyway.
    Ah, it's *technology*, that manly endeavor, which has finally granted
    women enfranchisement!  Oh heart of my heart, I grovel and beg pardon
    for my presumption for having thought I felt a difference between
    pleasure and reproduction; in all things thou are wiser: my existence
    is null to thy vastness, a hole to thy towering strength.
    
    I don't think, DFW, you got her point at all.
    

    and Lisa I'm not quite sure you got DFW's either but that
    is what makes these converstations interesting. 
    
    I would have to agree with Joyce on this one. I don't feel
    complete in love making without both types of fullfillment.
    If I have one and not the other I feel I am left unfinished.
    
    Bonnie

	Don't be so quick to grab your guns -.1 - for much of the lifetime
	of humanity making babies was a prime imperative for survival (of
	the species not the particular women who died having those kids).
	I agree that it's no longer so but we are not more than 200 years
	removed from that era. Most of the history of humankind was static
	and slow changing until the industrial revolution. Our society has
	not managed to keep up with the realities of all the ways our world
	has changed. And women, more than men, I think, are paying the 
	price of that. Anatomy truely was destiny for our fore-mothers. 
	
	I think that sometimes men are frightened of female sexuality. We
	can have babies, multiple orgasms, and they can't even tell if we
	are faking it, which is not true for them. To find out, on top of
	all that, that other women might give us more satisfaction must
	seem quite a threat. On the bright side, they must have some 
	redeeming features as we keep on loving them :*) liesl

	Oopps, someone got in while I was writing so my last note reply's
	to the note before the note that got in while the note I was
	writing....well, you know. liesl

    that's okay leisel :-)

< Note 426.10 by AKA::TAUBENFELD "Almighty SET" >

>    A former roommate of mine once had a 'sexual boycott' against her
>    boyfriend.  She told him that she was tired of 'wham bam thank you
>    m'am'  sex and that she would not have sex with him until he made
>    an effort to satisfy her.  At which he whined "But it's so much
>    work." 
>    

Not all of us men have that attitude. As a matter of fact some
women have the same attitude that is described above about the roomates
boyfriend.


Vin

  People I think we need to cool the amount of explicit detail that
    is being entered here. I have been reminded that it is alread y
    greaterthan that which got another conference in trouble last year.
    
    Bonnie J
    moderator

    I apologize then, I felt that being blunt was the only way to prove
    my point.  But if it's going to get us in trouble then I guess we
    had better cool it.
    

    I second Bonnie's request for more circumspection. Please remember that
    this is a completely open file:  the most casual passerby, even a
    customer being provided a demonstration of networking, can look in at
    any time.  Let's save the earthy descriptions and humor, honest and
    effective though they are, for less public arenas.
    
    Thank you all.
    
    						in Sisterhood,
    						=maggie 

    200 years is a long time...but that's not the point.  We have a
    tradition of more than 2000 years of men's literature about their
    sexuality. Yet when a woman (Aphra Behn for example) writes about 
    such matters she's dismissed as being too bawdy and doing in
    appropriate things for a woman.  That was 300 years ago, pardon
    that margin of error.
    
    Anyway, if babies were so all fired important, why didn't those
    men spend more time with them instead of intellectualizing?  Why
    weren't girls more highly valued than boys?  (Remember, only females
    can bear children, as yet, and maternity was one of the more risky 
    occupations then.)
    
    This is a complex issue, yes?  It can't merely be ascribed to
    population = survival, unless, of course, you accredit our ancestors
    with an sufficient level of stupidity.  This is why I'm here to
    disagree.
    
    I have no problem with folks here stating their sexual orientation,
    but the history of heterosexuality as essential to survival has
    me somewhat dizzy...What would you do in a topic where the theme
    had become "All great artists were asexual", which was supported
    by numerous examples, or at least by finding asexual leanings
    in some really well-known figures and discrediting those that couldn't
    be so labelled, and maybe even someone's eloquent argument
    that asexuality was a required ingredient of genius?   We survive
    as humans by more than mere baby-making, we thrive on our culture.
    What does one's bed-mate have to do with one's ability to shoot
    a deer, or weave cloth, or organize a field crew, or keep everyone
    from going cabin-crazy on endless winter evenings.  I don't know,
    I just feel so strongly that claiming heterosexuality was the key
    to survival is disinheriting a great many great grandfathers and
    grandmothers and aunts and uncles and cousins, if disinherances
    can travel back in time.
    
    And can anyone justify men calling the cards on women's sexuality?
    (Seriously, I mean.)

    <--(.16)
    
    I think the argument equating heterosexuality with species survival
    was just (unless I missed something, always a good possibility)
    the acknowledgement that lesbians and gay men do not practice much
    parthenogenesis; when they have children, they do so "heterosexually".
    
    The anthropologist I quoted in an earlier note has as I mentioned a
    fairly simple thesis: that cultural practices arise for fully mundane
    reasons, and are then mystified to insure their support by the members
    of the particular society.  This view appeals to me greatly on
    scientific grounds, since it appears to explain much without resorting
    to major displays of armwaving or blue smoke. He considers that
    exclusive and mandatory heterosexual practices were mandated first by
    the Jews and later by the Christians for very practical reasons:
    exclusive and mandatory heterosexual activities generally result in a
    rapid population increase, and that tends for many reasons to support
    the continuation of the culture. (It's much harder to kill off a large
    group of people than a small one, for example).  As long as population
    pressure wasn't an issue and possible genocide was, the suppression of
    homosexual activities (and homosexuals) was culturally adaptive.  The
    fact that it is now *maladaptive* doesn't alter history any more than
    its value in the past should be used to justify its continuation
    today. 
                         
    						=maggie

On the other hand, some religious practices evolved in order to separate
the believers of one faith from the larger world.  I doubt whether
homosexuality (or homosexual practices) would have a great effect on the
birthrate.  It didn't seem to affect the birthrate of societies where
homosexual practices were acceptable. 

May I indulge the audience with some arm-waving to tie the whole
"differences" discussion together.  Note that I have absolutely no
qualifications for this, whatsoever. 

Back when we were living in caves, there was survival advantage for men
to be strong, fast, and agressive.  Such traits were useful for hunting
animals and for defending the family against outside events. 

Since women had to stay home with the kids (to feed them), there was
survival advantage for efficient fat storage mechanisms (helps keep the
babies alive when there's no other food), and for a genetic predisposition
to getting along with one's neighbours. 

When the agressive males return to the cave, the sexual availablility of
the women (full-time availability is unique to humans) could be used to
keep them in line. 

Simple, huh?  (Of course, the problem with simple answers is that they're
usually wrong.)

Check out Desmond Morris's books for a popular, but more detailed
discussion of this.

Martin.

    re .16
    
    To my mind, this note misses the point about the nature of
    "survival". So, to some extent, does .17, methinks, though it makes
    valid points about much more recent factors. Society and its
    influences are a fairly recent - and thereby fairly minor - wrinkle
    in the evolution of the human species. Homo sapiens is, above all
    else, a member of the animal world - an animal which happens by
    accident of evolution to have a (very recently) more highly
    developed social order than most. Those things that make us "tick" -
    the reactions of our nervous systems, and our instinctual reactions
    to them and to our environment - derive from our history as animals,
    not as "higher beings" of some sort. 
    
    So if sexual activity is accompanied by pleasurable sensations, it
    is merely because those of our progenitors which by accident of
    evolution experienced these sensations were more motivated to
    reproduce. THAT is the connection I would make between heterosexual
    reproduction and survival. 

    Which brings up some interesting speculation (and not being a
    biologist, I'm moving onto very shaky ground here). What follows
    are basically some random thoughts that came up while I was mowing
    the lawn. Call it suburban musing.
    
    If homophilia were a genetic characteristic, it would tend (by
    natural selection) to be "deselected" to the extent that it
    precluded heterosexual relations. (Not eliminated, of course, since
    there is ample evidence that sexual preference is not a binary
    state. The much more recent question of "wanting children" also
    would tend to counter the deselection mechanism once society
    advanced to the point that the connection between sex and
    reproduction was made. Anyway, you get the idea.) 

    However, the "wildcard" of society can change that, just as the
    "wildcard" of medicine appears to be causing the average person's
    eyesight to deteriorate because people who can't see well manage to
    survive in spite of their handicap. A society which makes a pariah
    of the homophile makes it more likely that they will enter into
    heterosexual relationships, and the "deselection" process is
    cancelled. A society which frowns upon homosexuality, therefore,
    could actually INCREASE its incidence - IF there is a genetic cause. 

    Not being a biologist, I can't (and won't) speculate on to what
    extent our instincts and social behavior are genetically derived.
    However, when dealing with something as basic as those systems
    involving human reproduction, I'm not naive enough to believe that
    we have "progressed" particularly far from our animal heritage.
    Having skewed the odds with society, we become animals placed in an
    environment for which our bodies were not "designed" (i.e. evolved).
    How we cope with this is (I believe) at the root of not only
    this discussion, but (to some extent) the interaction between
    male and female within society.
    
    However, don't read more into the above than I put there. This
    is no more than some musings about our favorite primate, triggered
    by the misunderstanding a few notes back surrounding the issue
    of "heterosexism" and "survival".    

    
    re: .5
    
    If you really believe that's what I said, well, then, I'm not coming
    across very well.  Of course, the reason for my lack of clarity
    appears to have been very eloquently explained.
    
    Off to SOAPBOX, where the discussion is at a level I can fathom
    :-)
    
    DFW

    <--(.20)
    
    Don't you dare leave!  Your .4 was *very* lucid, to my reading. I
    think Lisa (.5) just did what I so often do:  make a trivial
    interpretive error at a critical point, following which all the
    conclusions I chain to it are both impressively reasoned and
    completely dippy.  (And it is never I who catches the original
    error, either :'})
    
    						=maggie

    The following note has been edited and reentered with the
writer's permission

Bonnie J
moderator       

     <<< COLORS::$2$DUA11:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 426.10                       Heterosexism                          10 of 20
AKA::TAUBENFELD "Almighty SET"                       15 lines   8-AUG-1987 19:46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Though what I meant in the quote was not what you interpreted,
    I find that you do have a point.  Sometimes I do 'make due with
    what I get', maybe because the guy doesn't know what gives me pleasure,
    maybe because the guy doesn't care or maybe because (and most often)
    I consider that part of sex to be too personal.  
    
    A former roommate of mine once had a 'sexual boycott' against her
    boyfriend.  She told him that she was tired of 'wham bam thank you
    m'am'  sex and that she would not have sex with him until he made
    an effort to satisfy her.  At which he whined "But it's so much
    work." 
    

    re .18:
    
    > Check out Desmond Morris's books for a popular, but more detailed
    > discussion of this.
      
    Popular among males, that is.
    
    Check out _The_Descent_of_Woman_ for an alternate view.
    
    The thesis of this book is that _The_Naked_Ape_ is a book with a
    male attitude, that evolution of the species was driven by the needs
    of the males. _The_Descent_of_Woman_ proposes that evolution would
    actually be driven much more by the needs of the females, since
    they are the ones who have to bear the next generation. I think
    this book was expanded and republished as _The_Aquatic_Ape_.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

Since a woman can only have a baby approximately once a year, annual 
reproductive sex ought to be plenty to abundantly reproduce the species. 
This type of behavior is pretty common among animals after all (fall 
matings, spring babies).  All other sex is gratuitous, and I think this
debunks the notion that enforced, exclusive, constant heterosexuality
somehow increases the population. 

The common mythology about why humans have all this extra sex is that 
it ties a wandering, lustful hunter to home and hearth, where he 
protects his women and children (from other wandering, lustful hunters, 
mostly).  The myth promotes this as the foundation for the nuclear 
family and all of human civilization.  

There is an alternative myth, and that is one of essentially female 
cooperation.  It posits that human communities were primarily women with 
their offspring, banding together for mutual benefit and protection.
(The idea that helpless women need men to protect them from the wild is 
so much silliness: any zoologist will tell you there's nothing more
implacable than a mother with offspring to protect, and a band of mothers
is indeed formidable).  In this context, civilized graces are allowed to 
flourish: after all, agriculture, pottery, weaving, healing, home-
building are all traditionally "women's work" and were probably women's
inventions. 

As is still true in some parts of Africa today, non-breeding adult males 
lived apart from the community -- isolated hunters for the most part, 
connecting with the larger community only when they had earned the right 
to mate.  They do this by engaging in all sorts of dominance games with 
each other, until the biggest and strongest wins.  For males, power
equates with the right to have sex and offspring and connect to the
community.

This sort of dominance game thing is fine and evolutionarily helpful if 
it's confined to such things as running down the biggest antelope or 
getting the most tattoos.  It becomes evolutionarily contra-indicated 
when it develops into having the biggest nuclear warheads... but I 
digress.

As any farmer will tell you, having a prolific and healthy breeding
stock only requires a few superior studs, and the rest are generally not
worth their feed and keep.  

The trouble begins when the hunters become envious of the soft, settled 
life of the community and the almost mystical power that women have for 
immortality through procreation.  (The great mother goddess worshipped 
so widely by neolithic tribes was probably originally the Ancestral 
Mother that each tribe traced its orgins to).  

How to have these things for themselves?  To own and possess women.  To 
"marry" them.  To make their wombs extensions of their own selves, so 
that they can have offspring by proxy, to claim the work of their hands 
(food, clothing, shelter) as their own.  To make this situation seem 
completely natural, and ordered by God (who has dispossessed the Ancient 
Mother and her scary dark power).  That is the true meaning of "the
Fall", and the subjugation of Eve (whose name means "life"). 

To own a woman of course, one must have exclusive sexual use of her.
To deny her any other options which might impact a man's ownership, her 
natural sexuality must be controlled.  Cutting off her genitilia is one 
drastic way, but conditioning her to consider her body unclean and sex 
an unpleasant duty which gives her little pleasure is just as effective.

I would like to provoke some excitement by suggesting that theory of sex 
being used to bond nuclear families together could just as easily have
been applied to these hypothetical early communities of women.  One
tends to feel very fondly toward one who provides you pleasure, and this
could be the basis of lots of cooperative "women's work"... 

    One interesting alternative interpretation for the hetero/reproductive
    sex act referred to the woman "capturing" rather than the man
    "penetrating."  
    
    It is an, er, apt description...
    
    :)
    
    Lee

From .0:
>I've called this topic heterosexism, because I would like to question 
>some of the basic assumptions about sexual relationships.  These 
>assumptions are that male/female intercourse is a natural imperative, 
>essentially procreative in nature, and that women's sexuality is 
>primarily defined in terms of her response to male sexuality.

A synopsis of the responses so far. these are my own paraphrases, sorry if I
missed your particular point:

.1: the author's personal experience leads her to believe that
    heterosexuality is instinctive.  the "good fit" ethical argument.

.2: the author believes that heterosexuality is mandated by evolutionary
    forces.

.3: questions defining female sexuality in terms of male sexuality. wishes
    for an alternative.

.4: the author believes that heterosexuality is mandated by biological
    necessity for survival of the species. Biological necessity has also
    prevented intellectual investigation of this state of affairs.

.5: takes offense at the (presumed) heterosexist assumptions of .4

.7: more survival of the species & men's fear of women's sexuality promotes
    heterosexism

.10: anti-heterosexual: it's hard work for a man to satisfy a woman
     sexually

.11: anti-heterosexual: it's hard work for a woman to satisfy a man
     sexually

.16: debunking survival of the species justification

.17: more debunking of survival of the species. alternative justification:
     tribal success.

.18: prehistoric armwaving justification for heterosexuality

.19: obfuscation along prehistory/evolution lines

.23: attack of evolutionary argument of .18

.24: debunking prehistoric/evolutionary justification.

.25: redefining heterosexuality in women's terms

So far there seems to be rather more justification and defense than
questioning of the assumptions and definitions mentioned in .0. However, at
least no one has brought in the biblical justification. Thank the goddess
for that. :-)

Don.

    
    re: .26
                           
    My idea in .4 was to try and offer the opinion that a set of
    ENVIRONMENTAL factors caused us to attach importance to large families
    (which still means traditional intercourse).
    
    That time has passed.  I didn't say that, because I thought everyone
    would agree with that.
    
    I'm gonna print .4 out and hang it above my VAXStation, to remind
    me that noting is just like the rest of the world.
    
    DFW

re -.26
    
    My .2 pointed out that some heterosexual activity was required in
    an evolutionary sense. I explicitly pointed out that did not rule
    out non heterosexual behavior.
    
    I alluded to repression of non heterosexual behavior as the root
    of distortions in sexual relations. I suspect we all have homo as
    well as heterosexual tendencies. Our sexual preferences are probably
    conditioned by a combination genetic, environmental, and cultural
    factors.
    
    Some economic institutions have a stake in reinforcing some tendencies
    and diminishing others. It is cheaper for societies to force the
    burden of socialization of children to individual families. This
    burden falls mostly on mothers.
    
    This burden falling mostly on woman is reinforced by attacks on
    a woman's right to control her own body and her life in general.
    "A woman's role is to produce babies not to engage in general
    societal productivity". If a woman has to work it is her mans fault
    and she is made to feel guilty for not taking care of her children.
    
    Our society is geared into restricting a woman's role. If she is
    frustrated and not confident then it easier to employ her for a
    lower wage. It is also easier to lay her off when the economy
    contracts (after all it just a second wage) puting her in a cycle
    where it is difficult to command a descent wage.
    
    A woman that has control over her body, that is not afraid of sexual
    options, that is confident is not going to be as easily exploited.
    
    Men must support woman's standing up from this super exploited role.
    Socialization of children born to willing mothers must be available
    at no cost to the individuals. This expence should be of society
    as a whole. Parents (either or both) should be able to enjoy children
    without extreme finacial or time burdens. Both should be free to
    contribute to the building of society and its culture.
    
    No forced motherhood, no forced sterization, no forced sex roles.
    
    /Les Slater

        While I strongly deny being a homophobe, I won't fight a label
        of heterosexist, so this may not be a strong discussion for me. 
        
        As you may have expected, I'd like to represent the militant
        center in this discussion as well. I don't think that an
        explanation of the importance of sex or the role of sex in human
        cultural evolution that centers either on men or on women is
        very accurate. I would say that a proposed prehistory needs to
        emphasize the contributions of both males and females and the
        importance of love in order to be on target. 
        
        I reject the society of hunters and their attendant breeders
        picture as well as the society of women and their attendant
        studs. It is my experience of humans and of the other great apes
        that co�peration and love are extremely important motivators. It
        is my belief that human nature is not based on either sex
        exploiting the other, but on the two working together and loving
        together. 
        
        One of the better known Neanderthal skeletons is the remains of
        a middle aged or old man somewhat crippled from birth and
        mutilated by a long and hard life who was carefully buried among
        wild flowers. He, in all probability, was never a great hunter,
        and if we think of his people as living in a harsh dog-eat-dog
        world competing with each other, it doesn't make a lot of sense
        to keep him alive so long or to bury him with such care. 
        
        But if we think of him as a member of a large and supportive
        family, we can see the reasons to support and to love him, to
        care for him and to care about him. Human beings often help
        their less fortunate fellows and often profit thereby in the
        long run. If we are trying to understand our ancient origins, I
        think it is best that we see him not as an exception, but as
        part of the norm. I wouldn't ask why is he valuable to a society
        of hunters or a society of men, but why is he valuable to a
        family.
        
        So, why is sex fun? That seems to be one of many things the base
        note ponders. My own answer is that sex exists for three
        reasons, that it serves three purposes. It is reproductive. It
        strengthens pair bonds. It gives pleasure. It acts on the
        biological, social, and personal levels. It serves different
        purposes, and they may conflict.
        
        Reproductive sex is the fundemental biological purpose. It is in
        some sense the original purpose. Lots of creatures have sex and
        don't keep or at times even meet their sexual partners. If it
        were the only purpose sex would be very dull and very different.
        
        Sex also causes and strengthens pair bonding. It does this in
        many species. Usually those species care for their young
        together in some way. The young are born incompetant. Human
        children are very much in this style. Human babies take enormous
        resources to care for. Pair bonding and families are very
        important to the physical survival and the education of human
        young. In so much as sex keeps a family together in a unit it
        serves a very important purpose. Both hetero- and homo-sexuality
        can bond a family together. If a family is going to have
        children there will need to be some heterosex, but it needn't be
        the only kind. 
        
        Finally, sex feels good. That may contribute to the pair
        bonding, but you can get pair bonding without lots of sex and
        without much pleasure. Pair bonding could be based on undeniable
        need (see a treatise on the 7 year sexual cycles of Vulcans),
        as well as on pleasure.
        
        So why does it feel good? I think because that fits into the
        whole issue of love and shared pleasure, into the whole picture
        of being human. I think that love and companionship are very
        imprtant to the higher primates. We do things for each other. We
        could build societies that were held together by need or by
        compulsion but it wouldn't be human. It also might not succeed
        as well. A society of need or convenience has no reason to
        continue through times of pleanty. It has no reason not to turn
        on itself in times of privation. 
        
        A society based on shared pleasure and on love has a reason to
        stay together when food and other essentials are bountiful. It
        has a reason to try to struggle together in times of dire need.
        Sexual pleasure fits into a social structure built on sharing
        and love. In that way it bolsters the extended family, perhaps
        not directly, but at least as part of a pattern. Pair bond keeps
        the nuclear family together. Love keeps a larger family
        together. 
        
        Exchanging members--either young men or young women joining
        another extended family from the one they grew up in--forms
        bonds between familes and helps to build the next level of
        society, the tribe. Sex thus indirectly contributes to the
        building of larger societies.
        
        You can clearly fit homosexual sex into the shared pleasure/
        love/extended family model. It can serve a function there. It
        does not fit so well into the reproductive function of sex or to
        the pair-bonding to raise offspring. It therefore would seem to
        serve only one of the purposes of sex. Thus you might expect it
        to be less important and less common than heterosexality. None
        the less, if it does serve one of the three purposes it can be a
        positive and natural thing. That that aspect of sex is the most
        human could make it very important. 
        
        This is all just personal specualation and philosophizing. Its
        just me pondering what I think makes us human. I'm not sure it
        drags us unerringly to any conclusions on heterosexism or
        homosexuality. 
        
        JimB. 

    It may not drag us to any conclusions but it was certainly beautifully
    and astutely stated.

    sex, whichever you choose, is more than fun....one of the things
    that contributes to the pair bonding which occurs is communication.
     This assumes, of course, that the sex is saatisfactory to both
     partners (or however many there are).  Long ago, when the
    spoken/written languages were developed, lost were many of the physical
    signals that spoke our innermost thoughts.  Books such as Julius
    Fast's "Body Language" or Desmond Morris' "Manwatching" try to unravel
    some of our unspoken signals, but since we seem to process them
    subconsciously, almost gone is the well-thought-out effort to get a strong
    feeling across in a primal way.  Sexual closeness is warm and
    comforting, it is being catered to and pampered, it is being treated
    with great tenderness and consideration.  It is pleasure given and
    taken.  It is joyous, energizing, rewarding....and in an often hostile
    outside world it is a refuge from the troubled waters without, and
    a reassurance of our acceptability and capability as human beings.
     
    As for the man being agressive, and the woman being passive, I have
    found this to be the case sometimes in the past.  However, the goal
    for which I strived (and attained) is equality.  Both taken and
    taking...together.  

    -Jody
    

Those of you who want to discuss male dominance might enjoy dropping
in to BETHE::SOAPBOX, note 448.  There are a lot of men there who
would enjoy meeting you.

Martin.

    Hi.
    
    This is a sincere apology.  I'm more than a little stressed by
    circumstances outside the scope of this notesfile, but still the
    stress erupts in the most unforeseen places.  Such as this note.
    
    Well.  I know what I wanted to be saying, earlier, but I can't seem
    to line up the thoughts and march them onto the screen.  Perhaps
    I shall return to it later.  All of the replies have warranted a
    thoughtful reading, much like most everything in the file.  But
    I really am dropping this for now  (or actually, since Monday).
    Although rarely placid, I usually try to show more courtesy.
    
    Sorry. And, well: thanks for your patience.                            lsc

    	A very quick comment on the concept of only women being capable
    of faking orgasm.  Ejaculation by the male is not orgasm.  The two
    can be separate.
    
    Douglas
    
    	Sorry if the above is 'out of the approved bounds.'