Michael Ragland  wrote or quoted:

> TT:
> Reproduction is not a "natural right" - as somatic cells and
> ants should clearly demonstrate. 
> Nature simply does not necessarily make all somatically distinct
> individuals sexually potent. 
> 
> MR:
> It may not be a "natural right" but sexual reproduction is the form of
> reproduction for humans. 
> 
> TT:
> It's the most common one - but is no longer the only one ;-) 
> 
> MR:
> In vitro fertilization is still a form of human sexual reproduction.

....but cloning is not.

> MR:
> We already are essentially a colonial organism. I don't see modeling
> human society on insects and kin selection as viable. I do possibly see
> the need in the future for sterile human worker clones but this isn't
> based on kin selection. In fact, I see a time in our evolutionary future
> where no descendants of humans sexually reproduce. [...] 
> 
> TT:
> I don't. The future will be powerfully and permanently sexual. 
> 
> MR:
> Are you sure you aren't applying anthropomorphic characteristics to your
> projection of our evolutionary future?

I'm sure.

> MR:
> As I mentioned I think eventually our descendants won't sexually
> reproduce...interbreed with anything. Genetic recombination and the
> creation of "human life" will will take place in the laboratory and
> artificial wombs. 
> 
> TT:
> You sound like you have an odd definition of sex. 
> 
> MR:
> That's a very interesting point you make. My guess is if our descendants
> don't sexually reproduce with anything and the creation of "human
life"
> will take place in the laboratory and artificial wombs then ultimately
> we will become sexless. [...]

IMO, quite a bit of future sex will look something like the process 
described in this article:

``How Companies Have Sex''

 - http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/05/sex.html

> TT:
> Indeed - most future soma will typically be created in something more
> closely resembling a factory than anything else... but that doesn't mean
> it will not be sexual. 
> 
> MR:
> Well I can tell you place alot of importance on sex.

Of course: sex is "nature's masterpiece".

> TT:
> Make no mistake, large genitals are in some demand - and consequently
> the future will see bigger genitals than have ever been seen in the
> past. 
> 
> MR:
> Yes, there is a demand for it but I'm not sure genetic engineering will
> be helpful. 
> 
> TT:
> Sure it will ;-) 
> 
> MR:
> See, if the man's penis is too big it hurts the woman's vagina and if it
> is real big make her have a bowel movement. [...] 
> 
> TT:
> It won't /just/ be men with bigger genitals ;-)

[...]

> MR:
> Well I'm not aware of many woman who want bigger pussies unless they
> have an abnormally small one. The market is for men who want bigger
> dicks because this is suppose to attract females.

Females have this, though:

``Lolo Ferrari Biography''

 - http://www.talkingblue.com/pornstar/Lolo_Ferrari_gs.htm

;-)
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim{at}tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/18/04 10:15:55 PM