Social Selection not Sexual Selection (Love vs Lust)

[pouchedfox.livejournal.com]

Interesting...
good interview in alternet discussing Joan Roughgarden's book: "

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0520240731/qid>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

Interesting...
<a href="http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18437">good interview in alternet</a> discussing <b>Joan Roughgarden's book: "<a href="<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0520240731/qid=1082142471/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-7979147-7916669?v=glance&s=books">Evolution's Rainbow : Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People</a>"</b>
<table><td>
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0520240731/qid=1082142471/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-7979147-7916669?v=glance&s=books"><img src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0520240731.01._PE32_PI_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg"></a></td><td>In it he questions the whole notion of Darwinism, and suggests that instead of simple sexual selection that there is social selection.

That sex is not just for reproduction. (sex is a very inefficient way to reproduce.....)

But maybe sex is a form of communication that helps bond, and keep in touch, close and personal, and reassurance and security (love?). That relationships aren't just about sex, but mutual co-operation.

That maybe their are more than 2 sexes. That sex isn't about making babies, but love.......
</td></table>

Wow, I remember my health teacher in high school used to say "sex is a form of communication" seems like all I've heard from Darwinism and the republicans (2 opposite sides) is it's supposed to be for reproduction only. The book sounds very thought out with lots of examples.