Skip to content

Development of sexuality


I continue with my review of some old posts. This one was originally written in June 2005. While re-reading it I could remember the time I had thought of that post – while cycling back from work, which is one of the most fertile moments for thinking interesting things!

Most of the time, ideas keep on cominng and passing through, and I can hardly remember them but I like this re-reading of my old posts to have vivid memories of my thoughts at that time.

Anyway, here is the post:

<<Suddenly I thought of the differences in the male and female bodies. Why are males full of force and muscular strength but have lower life expectation while women have less muscle force, are apparently weaker and have longer life expectancy? It is because they have to carry babies in their wombs, I thought, so they could not have participated in hunting and gradually over time, we ended with men developing muscle power and women developing other powers.

May be that is true for humans but a tigress or a lioness is as strong as a lion or a tiger? I don’t think that it is males who go for hunting while females wait at home, so both have to hunt and find food. So then why did nature create males and females? Wouldn’t it have been better to have hermafrodites, both males and females in the same bodies? It would have been more practical and reproduction (continuation of the species as the most important primordial impulse) much easier? It has to be something to do with mixing of genes so that if there are any defects in genes, they can be overcome. Confused? Don’t know where this kind of thinking is supposed to lead but I am still thinking!

I like the way they use old buildings in Italy to put them together with new things and the result is wonderful. Bologna has a wonderful university auditorium that was a 2000 year old ruin and they have kept part of old walls and added glass and steel to make a remarkable structure. Or the way, they use old fountains and stairs, like the Spanish square in Rome that is used for fashion shows. In India too we do it, like the Khujaraho festival, but we use old buildings for classical dances and similar things so it is beautiful but not contrasting.>>

I think that this post is not complete, it starts with some reasoning that isn’t taken to its conclusion. Rethinking about it, I think that separating males from females is good for survival of species. Perhaps outgoing males had greater chances of dying while home staying women could complete the pregnancy and ensure the continuation of the gene pool. What do you say?

And I can’t make out the relationship between the first part of this post about sexuality and the last bit about conservation and alternative use of old buildings, and why I had mixed up these two things!

2 Comments leave one →
  1. 29/09/2009 7:00 pm

    I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you down the road!

  2. 12/10/2009 2:22 pm

    Females have the chance of being stolen away from their partners, by other males. So the males must have hidden them in some caves. hehe.

    Anyways, like you mentioned, a pregnant or a mother with a child won’t be able to run, hunt or do things fast, outside her home.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: