Is (straight) sex only for those that wish to procreate?

[Jaymes]

Should a person only have heterosexual sex if they're expecting and prepared for having a child?

Why or why not?

Is it reasonable to expect people that don't want children to either have only gay sex or never have sex?

 

[nutshell]

No. Heterosexual sex is for pleasure and procreation.

 

[Djamila]

Once you're married, sex for pleasure is allowed in Islam. Shia Muslims actually allow temporary, one or two-hour long marriages specifically for that purpose.

 

[Jaymes]

I'm not asking if heterosexual sex is for pleasure as well as procreation, but rather if people shouldn't have it if they're not prepared for having or don't want a child.

 

[Djamila]

Sorry, I misunderstood.

People should educate themselves about the risk, and be prepared to assume responsibility if they do make an error... but I think very little sex is actually had with the intention of creating a child?

 

[klubbhead024]

I'm not asking if heterosexual sex is for pleasure as well as procreation, but rather if people shouldn't have it if they're not prepared for having or don't want a child.

Thats kind of like saying don't drive a car if you don't want to be in an accident

 

[SoyLeche]

Thats kind of like saying don't drive a car if you don't want to be in an accident

Sorta. If you get in a car - be prepared for the fact that you may get in an accident.

If you want to have no chance of getting in an auto accident - never get into a car.

 

[Fluffy]

Should a person only have heterosexual sex if they're expecting and prepared for having a child?

They can do whatever they like. That includes having unprotected sex for the sole purpose of pleasure.

Why or why not?

Morality does not enter into the equation here or at least I don't think it should. I judge an action based either on the intent or the outcome and both of these methods fail me here:

The couple who doesn't intend to have sex yet does so unprotected obviously had pure intentions. The couple who has sex protected but splits the condom were not doing everything they could to reduce harm.

Is it reasonable to expect people that don't want children to either have only gay sex or never have sex?

It is reasonable to say that if you don't want to have children then having sex would be counter intuitive since it increases the chances regardless of how much protection you use. If you decide to go ahead with protection then you are saying "my other reasons for having sex outweigh the risk that I might get pregnant". So as long as it is worth it even in the event that you do get pregnant (and even are unable to have an abortion) then that is cool.

In my opinion, adopting a "it only happens to other people" attitude isn't very constructive and so anybody who gets pregnant and feels worse than whatever they got out of the sex has not made a very good decision. My view is that most people appear to be in this position.

The other alternatives are not limited to gay sex and not having sex, however.

Thats kind of like saying don't drive a car if you don't want to be in an accident

The analogy would hold only if there were no other drivers on these hypothetical roads. There is no other human agent here. But yes otherwise I agree. Actually a car accident is one of the biggest things that people take the attitude of "it only happens to other people" over. I say that in doing so, they set themselves up for a fall.

 

[jamaesi]

Is (straight) sex only for those that wish to procreate?

Certainly. That is why infertile heterosexual couples are barred from having sex.

 

[MaddLlama]

Asking people not to have sex because they're not prepared to have children is unreasonable. I think it is reasonable to ask that couples who are not prepared to have children educate themselves about the forms of birth control and use one or more of them before having sex.

 

[SoyLeche]

Asking people not to have sex because they're not prepared to have children is unreasonable.

Why is that?

 

[MaddLlama]

Why is that?

Because sex is not just about procreation - it is about pleasure. Not everyone wants to have children, and that should not mean that they have to deny themselves this avenue of pleasure. Not only is it pleasurable, but sexual pleasure is good for our health, and committed relationships.

Couples wanting to have this pleasure should, like I said, take precautions to prevent pregnacy if they don't want to have children. Not having sex is not the only option, and it's unreasonable to expect sex to be only for making babies.

 

[SoyLeche]

Because sex is not just about procreation - it is about pleasure. Not everyone wants to have children, and that should not mean that they have to deny themselves this avenue of pleasure. Not only is it pleasurable, but sexual pleasure is good for our health, and committed relationships.

Couples wanting to have this pleasure should, like I said, take precautions to prevent pregnacy if they don't want to have children. Not having sex is not the only option, and it's unreasonable to expect sex to be only for making babies.

Sure, there are other avenues - but it is not "unreasonable" to sugget abstinence. It is a perfectly reasonable and healthy lifestyle alternative.

 

[SoyLeche]

Sure, there are other avenues - but it is not "unreasonable" to sugget abstinence. It is a perfectly reasonable and healthy lifestyle alternative.

Not only is it reasonable - but it is the only way to guarantee that a pregnancy will not occur. Any other method just makes it less likely.

 

[nutshell]

If a couple is married and they are not ready for children, but want to experience sex for pleasure, then birth control is available.

 

[MaddLlama]

Sure, there are other avenues - but it is not "unreasonable" to sugget abstinence. It is a perfectly reasonable and healthy lifestyle alternative.

I never said that it's not a reasonable suggestion. The question isn't if it's a "healthy alternative", the question is: should we expect couples who don't want to have children to abstain from sex? I think that is an unreasonable expectation.

 

[SoyLeche]

I never said that it's not a reasonable suggestion. The question isn't if it's a "healthy alternative", the question is: should we expect couples who don't want to have children to abstain from sex? I think that is an unreasonable expectation.

Are you sure?

Asking people not to have sex because they're not prepared to have children is unreasonable.

I agree - I don't expect it to happen for a lot of people. It worked for me though, and I'm going to teach my children that abstinence is the best approach.

 

[SoyLeche]

If a couple is married and they are not ready for children, but want to experience sex for pleasure, then birth control is available.

I agree - and we are currently using it (probably just for another few months though - we're just about ready to get another one going )

 

[MaddLlama]

Are you sure?

Yes, I am sure the question is "should only the people who want to have children have sex", and yes I am sure that is unreasonable.

 

[SoyLeche]

Yes, I am sure the question is "should only the people who want to have children have sex", and yes I am sure that is unreasonable.

Ah - but that's not what you said in the post I quoted. If you replace the word "Asking" with "Expecting" - then I will agree with you. It is reasonable to ask them not to though.