| |
|
She might also have been swift to correct you because she read your post and thought "hmmm, perhaps I should correct that misapprehension"... I don't think speed of typing is necessarily a sign of emotional instability... what you are doing there is assuming that people are prickly, as opposed to simply interested in contributing to the thread. It's a bit ad hominem, and I'd suggest keeping an eye out for it.
What both Deva's and Ex's response has suggested to me is this question: how advanced does a species (I hope that's the right word) have to be before it starts contemplating sex-for-purposes-other-than-reproductive - ie recreational sex, non-vanilla (see other threads on this topic) sex, homo- and poly- sexual relationships, etcetera?
I'm not sure it works like that, does it? I mean, lots of animal species indulge in sexual practices that would be decidedly abnormal for humans - cannibalism, incest and multiple partners, to name but a few. I believe that there are primate groups with gay pair-bonds who help to raise and protect the children of other primates (help me out here, anyone...) I don't think that's necessarily about advancement per se.
As such, I would have to question a) the idea that *we all have to fuck and be fucked, because otherwise the race dies out*. This is clearly untrue. *Some* of us need to fuck and be fucked, possibly, depending on how you want to look at those terms, but if you go back to the point where even this could be some form of primal truth, you are probably back way beyond the point where the concept of "fucking" or "being fucked" was comprehensible to the creature (horses and dogs, for starters, are not universally hetero). As such, I don't think your thesis is necessarily functional. Nor am I convinced by the idea that if you go back far enough relations are "heteronormative" - heteronormativity being a pretty recent concept. Would, say, an Ancient Greek who enjoyed sex with his wife but also enjoyed fondling teenaged boys thing of himself as non-heteronormative, or as gay or bi? I don't think so... the terminology you're applying just doesn't cohere in the context to which you are applying it.
Frankly, there is no evidence that your imagined society would function in terms of hetero pair-bonds and the forcible exclusion of the different, any more than there is evidence that at any point the entire human race was any more gripped by the urge to procreate than it is now. You are also forgetting that there are plenty of people outside the heteronormative majority who want children, and who through various means obtain them, just as you are assuming that the fact that contraception was of dubious efficacy, say, two thousand years ago meant that women *wanted* all those babies, which is pretty clearly not universally true - abortifacients have been around for a long, long time...
So, on the whole I think your visions of human evolution, of human society and of human sexuality need a bit of work. |
|
|
