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

[Jaymes]

I'm a bit confused by your logic, ckdotca. Why should I be prepared to get pregnant if I never have sex with a man?

 

[MaddLlama]

I understand, I'm just saying that I think sex exists so that we can get pregnant not for pleasure. So with that said... I don't think people should have sex unless they are at least prepared to, if not, wanting to become pregnant.

It's a matter of morals I guess.

Sex is for both pleasure and procreation.

You can have sex with only one of the two, but both of these things are inherent in sexual activity, and therefore the "purpose" of sex cannot be pidegonholed into just one of these things. To do so is to deny biological science.

 

[MaddLlama]

And, by the way, it's proper form to post an introduction.

 

[ckdotca]

I guess you misunderstood me, what I meant by "I stand by my remarks" is that indeed, people should not have sex if they are not able to accept having a child. So in the case of homosexual sex, I would say again that you should not be having sex unless a child could be an acceptable result... and homosexuals aren't going to get pregnant... catch my drift?

 

[Real Sorceror]

I understand, I'm just saying that I think sex exists so that we can get pregnant not for pleasure. So with that said... I don't think people should have sex unless they are at least prepared to, if not, wanting to become pregnant.

It's a matter of morals I guess.

Thats like saying we should only eat to recieve nourishment. Don't you ever eat something simply for the fact that it tastes good?

 

[ckdotca]

I think that we can all agree that sex is a more sacred act than eating food. The bible teaches this, so I guess it is a matter of beliefs.

But don't try to downplay the significance of sex by comparing it to food, or anything else for that matter, it's not like anything else.

Having sex is what brings people into this world.
Putting an apple in one's mouth doesn't have an effect to this extent.

 

[MaddLlama]

I think that we can all agree that sex is a more sacred act than eating food. The bible teaches this, so I guess it is a matter of beliefs.

But don't try to downplay the significance of sex by comparing it to food, or anything else for that matter, it's not like anything else.

Having sex is what brings people into this world.
Putting an apple in one's mouth doesn't have an effect to this extent.

You're missing the point. Sex does not serve only one purpose. It has many purposes, procreation being one of them. To say that sex is only for people who can't have children, or want to have children is missing an entire part of sexual function.

You also don't have to have sex to get pregnant nowadays. Wonderful what technology can do for us...

Sex is only signifigant if a person believes it to be so. Plenty of people have casual sex, and to them sex is not a sacred act. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't make them wrong.

And, it's also proper etiquette to post an introduction before jumping in.

 

[SoyLeche]

Thats like saying we should only eat to recieve nourishment. Don't you ever eat something simply for the fact that it tastes good?

I hope you are not purging the food later though. That's dangerous.

 

[ckdotca]

"Sex is only signifigant if a person believes it to be so. Plenty of people have casual sex, and to them sex is not a sacred act. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't make them wrong."

I couldn't agree with you more with this quote.

Sex is only signifigant if a person believes it to be so, and what I'm saying is that "I feel" (If you haven't gathered that anything I post is my opinion) that people should consider sex to be very signifigant.

You are right, pleasure is another part of sex, but is exactly that, a part of it. Not the main focus.

People have sex when they are married and want childeren and those people accept the pleasure as well.

But, people also have sex when they're not married for the sake of pleasure, and do not accept the other part of it (pregnantcy).

Sex is so sacred that serpating it into two 'purposes' is wrong.

Oh, what do you mean by an introduction?

 

[Ciscokid]

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?

My girlfriend and I have sex and I'm sterile. Besides that shes on birth control pills to regulate her period so there is NO chance of us having a kid. We do it to express our love together and just enjoy the experience overall.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

I think only mature people should have sex, and I think part of that maturity involves understanding potential consequences of sex.

So I do believe that if a person is going to have heterosexual sex they need to be responsible about it and prepared to deal with possible outcomes.

That being said, though, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have sex when you don't want to have children. You just need to be especially careful about safe sex and birth control.

 

[Tiberius]

Sex is the means by which new life is created, and creating that new life is the responsibility of anyone who chooses to have sex. Doing anything to make sure that a new life can NOT be created when you have sex is to say, "I want the fun, but I don't want to take the responsibility." Well, that responsibility is part and parcel of having sex, and it violates the design of our bodies to remove any need to take responsibility.

So, as we can clearly see, condoms are immoral.

And we can also see that women who have gone through menopause must not have sex.

Women who have had hysterectomies must not have sex.

Men who have low sperm count must not have sex.

Any person who is incapable of producing offspring must not have sex.

*Sigh*

I trust everyone can see the sarcasm that is dripping off this post. (Watch your step, the floor may be slippery*

if sex was really meant for creating new life, it wouldn't be so much fun.

And if was really that bad to have sex while preventing conception, we wouldn't be able to prevent it at all.

And a woman's vagina would magically seal itself closed once she goes through menopause.

Sex is not just for reproduction and fun. it's also a bonding activity. A couple making love is doing one of the best things possible to reinforce their relationship. it's the most open people can be.

 

[SoyLeche]

if sex was really meant for creating new life, it wouldn't be so much fun.

Why not?

And if was really that bad to have sex while preventing conception, we wouldn't be able to prevent it at all.

Why not?

And a woman's vagina would magically seal itself closed once she goes through menopause.

Why?

Sex is not just for reproduction and fun. it's also a bonding activity. A couple making love is doing one of the best things possible to reinforce their relationship. it's the most open people can be.

I actually agree with this.

 

[Sunstone]

If sex was only for procreation, we'd only have it during female estrus. Women's bottoms would swell up and turn red, like they do in chimpanzees, and then we'd have sex. The fact that human females are sexually receptive outside of estrus is pretty good evidence that sex in humans is not evolved only along procreation lines.

 

[SoyLeche]

If sex was only for procreation, we'd only have it during female estrus. Women's bottoms would swell up and turn red, like they do in chimpanzees, and then we'd have sex. The fact that human females are sexually receptive outside of estrus is pretty good evidence that sex in humans is not evolved only along procreation lines.

Nope - instead evolution "figured out" a way to get these lazy primates to procreate - sometimes against their own wills. It made it fun

 

[Sunstone]

Nope - instead evolution "figured out" a way to get these lazy primates to procreate - sometimes against their own wills. It made it fun

Nope. Human evolution has been away from sex solely for procreation towards sex for other purposes. Just compare sex among chimpanzees with sex among humans. You'll see the differences.

 

[SoyLeche]

Nope. Human evolution has been away from sex solely for procreation towards sex for other purposes. Just compare sex among chimpanzees with sex among humans. You'll see the differences.

And yet, humans still procreate - reguardless of the "purpose" that they origionally had sex. I'm saying that pleasure is probably a more effective way to guarantee the continuation of the human race than mere instinct would be.

 

[Sunstone]

And yet, humans still procreate - reguardless of the "purpose" that they origionally had sex. I'm saying that pleasure is probably a more effective way to guarantee the continuation of the human race than mere instinct would be.

OK. I see what you're saying. But why seperate pleasure out of instinct? Isn't pleasure part of the instinct?

 

[SoyLeche]

OK. I see what you're saying. But why seperate pleasure out of instinct? Isn't pleasure part of the instinct?

That is entirely possible - but, as you've pointed out - the pleasure aspect in humans most likely works in a different way than the pleasure aspect in chimps.

 

[Sunstone]

That is entirely possible - but, as you've pointed out - the pleasure aspect in humans most likely works in a different way than the pleasure aspect in chimps.

From what I've read, chimps get pleasure out of sex, but they don't have sex outside of estrus, so I agree that it seems to work somewhat differently among chimps than among humans.