Sex strike

[Polymath257]

I never said that.

All I said was the reason sex exist is to reproduce.

Fun is a byproduct, therefore the secondary purpose.

Now most people do have sex more for fun than reproduction. I never denied that or said it shouldn't be so.

But it does not negate the biological fact that sex is for reproduction, not fun.

Actually, the reason we do it is because it is fun. The reason it is fun is because being fun makes it more likely we will reproduce.

But we now have the technology to have the fun without having the reproduction. That means that fun is now more likely to be the reason people have sex. It was always one of the primary reasons.

And, of course, we also have other means of reproduction. So that can happen without sex.

 

[Polymath257]

Fair enough, I will hold to my pronise.

That answer also answers my next few questions I had, so I don't need to ask now.

And, I want to emphasize, I will hold to my promises.

 

[Polymath257]

I never said that.

All I said was the reason sex exist is to reproduce.

Fun is a byproduct, therefore the secondary purpose.

Now most people do have sex more for fun than reproduction. I never denied that or said it shouldn't be so.

But it does not negate the biological fact that sex is for reproduction, not fun.

I'm curious. Do you consider sex for fun to be immoral?

 

[Enoch07]

Throughout history extremely poor families have had children, think yourself lucky they have, the human race has survived.

Sure and there is nothing wrong with that. But if you can avoid unnecessary hardship you should, or at least try anyways.

 

[Enoch07]

I'm curious. Do you consider sex for fun to be immoral?

Depends on the context, its nuanced for me.

 

[Enoch07]

Actually, the reason we do it is because it is fun. The reason it is fun is because being fun makes it more likely we will reproduce.

I've said this much in another post. I've never challenged this.

The biological purpose is reproduction though, not fun.

 

[ChristineM]

Sure and there is nothing wrong with that. But if you can avoid unnecessary hardship you should, or at least try anyways.

When there is no choice?

 

[Enoch07]

From the OP, you did say.....
"Hmmmm so she's encouraging women to not have sex to negate the risk of pregnancy?
Congratulations, you just backdoored your way into sexual morality! You shouldn't be having sex with anyone, your not prepared to have a child with!
I hope all liberal women join Alyssa Milano and support her sex strike. She might make moral people out of pro-choice supporters after all! "

I underlined the portions which treat sex for fun as immoral.

Your confusing hyperbole in my making jest of Alyssa Milanos hypocrisy with an actual argument.

She thinks a sex strike will somehow bring about the repeal of the heartbeat bill. But what she didn't realize is that by invoking a sex strike, there is no need for abortions. Get it? If not I will not bother further explaining.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've said this much in another post. I've never challenged this.

The biological purpose is reproduction though, not fun.

The fact that you ghetto had to change your claim tells us that you know that you are wrong. Your new claim is just a red herring. It does not help your cause.

 

[Enoch07]

When there is no choice?

What do you mean exactly?

No choice about having sex? I'll assume this is correct.

I do think abortions should be allowed for rape, incest, and molestations. Also when the womans life is almost guaranteed to end due to the pregnancy.

If I am wrong clarify what you mean and I will try to answer.

 

[Enoch07]

The fact that you ghetto had to change your claim tells us that you know that you are wrong. Your new claim is just a red herring. It does not help your cause.

I haven't changed anything.

You never understood from the get go.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your confusing hyperbole in my making jest of Alyssa Milanos hypocrisy with an actual argument.

She thinks a sex strike will somehow bring about the repeal of the heartbeat bill. But what she didn't realize is that by invoking a sex strike, there is no need for abortions. Get it? If not I will not bother further explaining.

I would not say that Milano was a hypocrite. Her request is merely impractical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I haven't changed anything.

You never understood from the get go.

Wrong again. You changed your argument. You never acknowledged your error.

 

[Enoch07]

I would not say that Milano was a hypocrite. Her request is merely impractical.

I disagree about it being hypocritical.

But I agree it is impractical, considering she would only be punishing liberal men who are pro-choice. All the pro-life men and women be jumping like rabbits regardless.

 

[Enoch07]

Wrong again. You changed your argument. You never acknowledged your error.

Prove it.

I'll wait.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your confusing hyperbole in my making jest of Alyssa Milanos hypocrisy with an actual argument.

She thinks a sex strike will somehow bring about the repeal of the heartbeat bill. But what she didn't realize is that by invoking a sex strike, there is no need for abortions. Get it? If not I will not bother further explaining.

Please excuse me for thinking you meant what you posted about sex & morality.
But opposition to recreational sex is a common view.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Prove it.

I'll wait.

Nope. You can tell by the countless rebuttals that you got and then your later change. Please, if you can't debate properly, that means acknowledging your errors, then there is no point in going on.

I will merely continue to correct your errors.

 

[ChristineM]

What do you mean exactly?

No choice about having sex? I'll assume this is correct.

I do think abortions should be allowed for rape, incest, and molestations. Also when the womans life is almost guaranteed to end due to the pregnancy.

If I am wrong clarify what you mean and I will try to answer.

You assumed correctly, considering the post i answered and the subject of the tread, that must have taken immense deductive reasoning.

I meant what we were talking about in your post #164. On such circumstances your objections are pretty irrelevant.

Maybe its getting too much that you need to add stuff to hide behind

 

[Polymath257]

I've said this much in another post. I've never challenged this.

The biological purpose is reproduction though, not fun.

And the relationship purpose is to bond people together. The personal purpose is fun and sharing.

Why is the biological purpose the one that wins?

 

[crossfire]

I never said that.

All I said was the reason sex exist is to reproduce.

Fun is a byproduct, therefore the secondary purpose.

Now most people do have sex more for fun than reproduction. I never denied that or said it shouldn't be so.

But it does not negate the biological fact that sex is for reproduction, not fun.

I dunno. I see a whole lot of non-human animals engaging in recreational sex. It's a biological fact. Another interesting biological fact is that among organisms that can reproduce both asexually and sexually, asexual reproduction is favored during times of abundance and non-stress, whereas sexual reproduction is favored during times of stress (possibly to mix up the genes to find something that can adapt to the stress.) Perhaps recreational sex is a way to break the primeval association between sexual reproduction and stress, especially among species that no longer have asexual reproduction?