Quote:
Originally posted by ReamusLQ@Feb 15 2005, 08:52 PM
However, even though males, on the majority, are naturally more "beautiful" than females, you never find a homosexual rooster, or bull, or gorilla.* I think homosexuality is something humans have created as a society.
|
Agreed there. And yes, animals' males are more attractive. But, the more intelligence a species has, the more attractive you have to be. In case of humans, being VERY intelligent as they are, the women as men will have to be more beautiful to be attractive. And that's where men come shorter. At least those who live in the cities, living a life in comfort and no physical and psychical challenges which is not necessary causing them to look better. Same for women, though.
Aesthetically a woman is usually more beautiful than a man. Ask any artist and he'll say you the same. See the sculptures and portraits of the past. Except of the greeks, who also created statues of strong men, other cultures, like that in India, made art with women. There were examples of art with men, also, but rarely and not really connected to beauty but instead to praise a leader and such.
Quote:
Originally posted by taikara@Feb 15 2005, 09:01 PM
Uhh?
Excitement during sex has nothing to do with the health of a child. It doesn't make DNA stronger. DNA is just DNA. In meiosis, your DNA breaks into two halves to create zygotes which can then be joined with a complimentary zygote from the opposite sex.
It's sort of "the luck of the draw," if you will.
And I wasn't speaking of cloning, just reproductive science. Cloning is another story altogether.
Having sex, from a biological standpoint, is nothing more than a transfer system for DNA.
|
It has something to do with that.
During sex, the more a male enjoys it, the more healthy his spermes are. And as such, the more healthy the child, if one will be produced after, will be. I think it's even proven scientifically.