«

Originally posted by taikara@Feb 15 2005, 08:48 PM
Technically, humans have the ability to be completely above their primordial animalistic roots and give up sex altogether.

In that case, people would become more and more degenerated with time. By reproducing a DNA-code it starts to contain less information with every new reproduction. And beside of that, clones that look all the same are pretty depressive - no differences anymore, no beauty in its sense.
In case of sperm donations, there's a saying: the more a man loves his woman, the healthier and stronger the child would be. And in case of donations, would a man be really that excited? Improbably. And the people born from a donated sperma will start to degenerate...

[taikara]

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.

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.

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.

[ReamusLQ]

Originally posted by FreeFreddy@Feb 15 2005, 12:01 PM
It has something to do with that.
During sex, the more a male enjoys it, the more healthy his spermes are. And vice versa. I think it's even proven scientifically.

<pats self> ahhhhh...Good, HEALTHY Sperm. Show me a girl, and my boys are suddenly armed with Bazookas and on steroids :bleh: k:

[taikara]

Originally posted by FreeFreddy@Feb 15 2005, 08:01 PM

Perhaps his sperm is healthier, but the sperm is simply the vehicle in the transport system. It doesn't effect DNA. DNA is something like binary, it's either a yes or a no.

More passion might lead to greater chance of reproduction, but it doesn't lead to greater chance of healthy DNA in a child.

Originally posted by ReamusLQ@Feb 15 2005, 09:05 PM
<pats self> ahhhhh...Good, HEALTHY Sperm. Show me a girl, and my boys are suddenly armed with Bazookas and on steroids :bleh: k:

Not that simply. She will have to be attractive enough, so you'll have more enjoyenment of sex.
And if she's not that attractive, you don't feel that strong, also.

Originally posted by taikara@Feb 15 2005, 09:06 PM
Perhaps his sperm is healthier, but the sperm is simply the vehicle in the transport system. It doesn't effect DNA. DNA is something like binary, it's either a yes or a no.

More passion might lead to greater chance of reproduction, but it doesn't lead to greater chance of healthy DNA in a child.

Ok, let's say it depends on the woman if the child will be healthier or weaker. But then again, that would depend on her love on the man. If their love is strong and they are happy with their family life, there's a better chance for a healthy child than if the man would beat the woman up and like. And the key is again the attractive look of the man.

[taikara]

Ahh, but that is social conditioning and has nothing to do with genetics. :whistle:

The feelings affect the genetical outcome, without the feelings the result isn't that good. After all, the woman hates her man, the woman doesn't love her child from him, at least not as strong as she would in other case (what woman could resist loving her child, anyway). And when a woman becomes pregnant with a child, her feelings for her man affect the child's growth during it's time inside. She doesn't know her child yet, after all.

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by FreeFreddy@Feb 15 2005, 09:45 PM
Would you say that a man would find another man more attractive than a woman? Because it would be quite obvious that a woman is always more attractive than a man, in aesthetical case. In the case of dogs it might be a leg of a human that's shaking and attracts the dog better than a female dog because its attraction works stronger on the dog. But males are less attractive than women, I dare to say? So why are some men more attracted to other men rather than to women? :eeeeeh:

Well just to show you how untrue your statemant is - if there would be no attractive men and women would be so attractive ALL WOMEN WOULD BECOME LESBIANS, which would mean the human race would die out a long time ago!

@taikara: According to Darwin?
No, I already explained that. Sex in nature is ment for reproduction. But no animals plan to reproduce or to have sex. That's why there's the pleasure of the orgasm and the urge to have it. So animals desire to have an orgasm, that's why they get the urge, that's why they mate. But if they can't mate, they'll look for an alternative to get rid of the urge - there's nothing wrong with that genetically. If males don't use their organ, that would eventually lead to medical problems (such as the trouble with the prostate) and that would mean that the weaker males of the species would be completely unable to reproduce - even if there's no more stronger males around. That would in fact be a genetical flaw.