I hope this is one big joke. No sex, how else are we suppose to occupy are free time? :)
-- Are We Alone? SETI Institute Science Radio: 9 August 2006 Edition: Sex: What is it Good For?
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.nl.html?pid!598
"Sex may be fun, but - admit it - the prep work is pretty onerous. If you're not preening to
improve your appearance or trolling the local watering hole for a likely mate, then you're busy
extracting clever remarks from your brain while forking over big bucks for wilted arugula and
fancy umbrella drinks/ So maybe our microbial brethren have the right idea; reproduce asexually.
In fact, we could be a step closer to this amoeba-like way of producing progeny. Scientists have
managed to create sperm in the laboratory, which hints that sex may go the way of hula-hoops
and the Homburg. Could it be that men will be handed the reproductive pink slip?"
On Aug 3, 2006, at 3:21 PM, Alex Michael Bonnici wrote:
> managed to create sperm in the laboratory, which hints that sex may
> go the way of hula-hoops
> and the Homburg. Could it be that men will be handed the
> reproductive pink slip?"
The show may be hosted by a man, but I'm sure it's really part of a
female conspiracy to overthrow their male oppressors and start an
Amazon space settlement. ;-)
doug
Well most anthropologist will tell you males of the human race have
been the driving force of civilization for better or worst.
To remove that may very well spell the end for the ever growing, and
technological advancemnt of civilization. But the biggest down fall
would be going Asexual as a whole. Say that killer asteroid hits earth
and knocked us back to the stone age.. That would be it, no bouncing
back for us if all the clinics where reproduction was taking place now
gone and only one sex left.. Theres a reason why humans have two sexs.
nature likes redundancy... The last point I believe that it takes both
qualities of the male as well as the female of the human race to make
a lasting civilization. It would be foolish to chose one over the
other. Both bring something worthwhile to the table..
wrote:
>
> I hope this is one big joke. No sex, how else are we suppose to
occupy are free time? :)
>
> -- Alex Michael Bonnici
>
> -- Are We Alone? SETI Institute Science Radio: 9 August 2006
Edition: Sex: What is it Good For?
> http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.nl.html?pid=21598
>
> "Sex may be fun, but - admit it - the prep work is pretty onerous.
If you're not preening to
> improve your appearance or trolling the local watering hole for a
likely mate, then you're busy
> extracting clever remarks from your brain while forking over big
bucks for wilted arugula and
> fancy umbrella drinks/ So maybe our microbial brethren have the
right idea; reproduce asexually.
> In fact, we could be a step closer to this amoeba-like way of
producing progeny. Scientists have
> managed to create sperm in the laboratory, which hints that sex may
go the way of hula-hoops
> and the Homburg. Could it be that men will be handed the
reproductive pink slip?"
Mentally separate sex from reproduction, and it all sorts out in your
head, and the sense of alarm dissipates. ;-)
We're more than bacterium, more even than ape-men clawing their way
through millennia of the Neolithic ages. Imagination and "feelings"
have taken over for the pure-cave-man rut, now that there's education
and leisure time for thinking (Granted, there's always exceptions,
and swooning for the brutes seems all too common sometimes... :-O ).
Other options for combining genes exist, to provide alternatives for
creating children. From host mothers & sperm/egg donors to help non-
viable couples, to maybe eventually artificial wombs so there's no
risk to a female who must carry it (this one's dubious, IMO), to
possibly tailored genetic make-up to suit the parent's wishes (for a
long time now, you can separate male-giving wigglers from female, and
pick what you want).
about more than producing a male orgasm to start offspring in a
female for procreation. Most people, when they participate in sex,
are doing it for more than instinctive reproduction ("News flash!").
I'll bet that most sex happens outside of holy matrimony, and without
the express intent to procreate.
There are still guilt-ridden religious sects that go to extremes
like removing genital nerve-bearing tissues to reduce sensitivity, or
use the bedsheet with a hole in the center, so sex is not for
enjoyment, but that sort of thing is rare, hopefully on its way out.
Alex Michael Bonnici
> I hope this is one big joke. No sex, how else are we suppose to
occupy are free time? :)
>
> -- Are We Alone? SETI Institute Science Radio: 9 August 2006
Edition: Sex: What is it Good For?
> http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.nl.html?pid=21598
>
> "Sex may be fun, but - admit it - the prep work is pretty onerous.
If you're not preening to improve your appearance or trolling the
local watering hole for a likely mate, then you're busy extracting
clever remarks from your brain while forking over big bucks for
wilted arugula and fancy umbrella drinks.
> So maybe our microbial brethren have the right idea; reproduce
asexually.
> In fact, we could be a step closer to this amoeba-like way of
producing progeny. Scientists have managed to create sperm in the
laboratory, which hints that sex may go the way of hula-hoops and the
Homburg. Could it be that men will be handed the reproductive pink
slip?"
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "John Frazer" wrote:
>
> Mentally separate sex from reproduction, and it all sorts out in your
> head, and the sense of alarm dissipates. ;-)
> We're more than bacterium, more even than ape-men clawing their way
> through millennia of the Neolithic ages. Imagination and "feelings"
> have taken over for the pure-cave-man rut, now that there's education
> and leisure time for thinking (Granted, there's always exceptions,
> and swooning for the brutes seems all too common sometimes... :-O ).
> Other options for combining genes exist, to provide alternatives for
> creating children. From host mothers & sperm/egg donors to help non-
> viable couples, to maybe eventually artificial wombs so there's no
> risk to a female who must carry it (this one's dubious, IMO), to
> possibly tailored genetic make-up to suit the parent's wishes (for a
> long time now, you can separate male-giving wigglers from female, and
> pick what you want).
>
> Contrary to the Abrahamic monotheism religious tradition, sex is now
> about more than producing a male orgasm to start offspring in a
> female for procreation. Most people, when they participate in sex,
> are doing it for more than instinctive reproduction ("News flash!").
> I'll bet that most sex happens outside of holy matrimony, and without
> the express intent to procreate.
> There are still guilt-ridden religious sects that go to extremes
> like removing genital nerve-bearing tissues to reduce sensitivity, or
> use the bedsheet with a hole in the center, so sex is not for
> enjoyment, but that sort of thing is rare, hopefully on its way out.
>
Yeah no kidding... And a good point we are one of the few animals on
this planet that have sex for just the pleasure of it. chances are we
wont stop anytime soon..... Even if we dont need to to reproduce with
sex any more.
On 8/4/06, the_gunfighter_45acp wrote:
(...)
> Yeah no kidding... And a good point we are one of the few animals on
> this planet that have sex for just the pleasure of it. chances are we
> wont stop anytime soon..... Even if we dont need to to reproduce with
> sex any more.
(...)
it. They probably don't correlate a sexual act weeks or months ago
with the birth of offspring. Evolution made sex funny in order to
guarantee that animals would engage in it - they wouldn't do that out
of "duty" for the perpetuation of the species...
Not out of season. most animals keep to the change of the seasons and
tend not to copulate out of season..
Most types of animals do not have sex for the sake of sex. whether or
not that its pleasureable dosent really factor in.
I have more facts on this but this is getting way off topic so I'll
simply leave it at that.
wrote: