From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Tue Dec 09 2003 - 23:58:30 GMT
I was just reading an article "Signal to Noise" about whether dolphins have
language or not and came across this small snippet and thought of this thread.
Just thought I'd share it.
" ...Moreover, dolphins are sexually promiscuous, engaging in both
heterosexual and homosexual activity. They seem to use sex as a means of
cementing social relationships, a behavior they share with only two other
species, bonobos and people."
Erin
>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
>Mark,
>
>> Mark said:
>>> In Lila, Pirsig suggests that the female is the one who chooses which DNA
>>> moves on.
>>
>> Mark, do you think this female choice is a social pattern or a biological
>> one? I think it is social, since biologically, a man can take whatever he
>> wants from a woman (most men are stronger than most women anyway).
>>
>> Mark 8-12-03: Hi Steve, DNA is a prerequisite of any social or intellectual
>> patterning that emerges from it. If a male stimulates a female's social or
>> intellectual perception of quality, then that is the DNA which will be
>> advanced.
>
>Steve:
>Fine with me. I was only suggesting that the pattern of women having the
>choice of what DNA gets passed is not biologically latched but socially.
>Here you seem to be saying the same thing.
>
>Mark 8a-12-03: A woman chooses. She chooses Quality. I wish there were more
>woman here to contribute, but as there are not, i will not say anymore.
>
>>
>>> I have a sneaking suspicion that there is no such thing as homosexuality!
>>> That term is a social imposition; the imposition of a male dominated
>culture
>>> over the values of women! Men do not feel at all comfortable that females
>>> like
>>> homosexuals! It is a threat to them.
>>
>> This is the sort of thing that SOMers do.
>>
>> Mark 8-12-03: I feel you may be confusing Male/Female values with SoM here?
>> Male/Female values are not SoM in a Quality centred metaphysics -
>obviously!
>
>Steve:
>I'm not. I was talking about your claim that there is no such thing as
>homosexuality. I think you missed my point.
>
>Mark 8a-12-03: If Homosexuality is a male dominated value centred social
>description then, the i, as a man, do not wish to pollute the issue with my
male
>dominated views.
>
>>
>> Steve (for it is but himself)
>
>What does "for it is but himself" mean (besides nothing)?
>
>Mark 8a-12-03: Lighten up for pity's sake.
>
>
>> I think what you are suggesting
>> is that homosexuality may be a social pattern rather than a biological one
>> and from the SOM perspective then doesn't exist since social patterns are
>> "just subjective." I'm sure you don't really think that social patterns
>> don't really exist, but you seem to be making the typical SOM error here.
>>
>> Mark 8-12-03: I suggested homosexuality may be a social description of
>> biological value. That is not SoM.
>
>Steve:
>Oh, I thought when you said "there is no such thing as homosexuality!" that
>it meant you thought that there was no such thing as homosexuality. I
>misread you, and my attempt at correcting you is then irrelevant. Your
>statement "I suggested homosexuality may be a social description of
>biological value" is much more clear.
>
>Mark 8a-12-03: Sometimes the in your head are those others would have you
>value?
>
>
>>> So, when you ask, 'Would you say a same-sex preference lies in the
>biological
>>> level, or the social level? Or perhaps some other level? i might be
>tempted
>>> to suggest that comment on biological preference is a social comment.
>>> Biologically, it's OK, ask a woman?!
>>
>> Again, I disagree that female ownership of choice is a biological pattern.
>>
>> Mark 8-12-03: Any homophobic would of course.
>
>Steve:
>That was uncalled for. What leads you to think that I am homophobic????
>
>Mark 8-12-03: Your lack of humility.
>
>All I'm saying is that it not a woman's biology that gives her the choice of
>sexual partners. It is society that gives her that choice by protecting her
>from rapists. How is that a homophobic thing to say???? I am baffled by
>your responses.
>
>> Steve:
>> I think that human sexuality is so complex that it is impossible to say to
>> what degree homosexuality is biologically based and to what degree it is a
>> social phenomenon. It's both.
>>
>> Mark 8-12-03: But not before exhibiting your culturally derived innate
>> homophobia i see.
>
>Steve:
>Please explain.
>
>Mark 8-12-03: Let woman speak for themselves.
>
>> Steve said: Charles, in my opinion, since homosexuality can be practiced in
>such a way
>> that it does not threaten social control over dangerous biological patterns
>> it is therefore moral according to the MOQ. It would be immoral to enact
>> laws against homosexuality since doing so would limit freedom without
>> strengthening society, and the MOQ says, all things being equal, choose
>> freedom.
>
>Steve:
>See? I just said that homosexuality is moral, yet your calling me a
>homophobe. Did you misread? Try it again, please.
>
>
>> Mark 8-11-03: Basically, what Steve appears to be saying here is that a
>woman
>> cannot find a homosexual sexually attractive, which is a bit fascistic
>against
>> woman as far as i can see.
>
>Steve:
>I never even touched on that point you made. Yet, you're summing me up as
>disagreeing with it. Did you even read what I wrote?
>
>> Typical male garbage!
>
>If you are going to discount a person's views because they come from a male
>then your in the wrong discussion group.
>
>I must have touched a nerve somewhere, but I really have no idea where. Are
>you objecting to my suggestion that homosexuality (and all human sexuality)
>is socially as well as biologically based?
>
>Mark, I was glad to see you start using your name and that you've been
>relatively civil lately. I can't understand why you would take this
>antagonistic position with me. I thought you were turning over a new leaf.
>I'm disappointed.
>
>The strangest part for me is that I don't think we have any strong points of
>disagreement on homosexuality. I can only hope that you merely misread me.
>In either case, I won't abide your personal attacks. I'd love to be able to
>converse with you, but if you can't do it without the personal attacks I
>won't even read your posts anymore. Please let me know what you decide.
>
>Steve
>
>Mark 8-12-03: I am not going to speak on behalf of women. Full stop. If you
>know better and feel able to speak on behalf of women, then fine, but it
seems
>to all you are doing is dictating to women.
>Mark
>
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archives:
>Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 23:43:18 GMT