NationStates Jolt Archive

I just thought this would produce interesting discussion.

Sexual reproduction. Biology is quite clear on that. The fact that humans find it pleasurable is just an incentive, and was an evolutionary advantage.

Reproduction, but humans have taken it a little farther.

Sexual reproduction. Biology is quite clear on that. The fact that humans find it pleasurable is just an incentive, and was an evolutionary advantage.

Wow... this response was posted before I had even finished making the poll...

To produce children, plain and simple

Wow... this response was posted before I had even finished making the poll...
I guess I just type quickly :D .

Technically, it's for reproduction but many people have it simply for pleasure.

Technically, it's for reproduction but many people have it simply for pleasure.
If it weren't for contraceptives, this would result in reproduction. Nature didn't plan for our human profilactics, but having sex a lot is one way to reproduce.

well lets see.....
suppose you have a good christian marriage
you are virgins on your wedding night
you stay married (and in love) for....50 years (til death parts you)
you have sex an average of 2/week (more in the early years, less in the later, time off for menstruation and extreme pregnancy)

SO we have 50 years X 52 weeks X 2 per week = hmmmm 5200 times you have sex in your life.

you have 2 children

sex is for pleasure and bonding

Sexual reproduction. Biology is quite clear on that. The fact that humans find it pleasurable is just an incentive, and was an evolutionary advantage.
obviously, yes.

it depends on the person. I mean, people have sex for one or the other purpose, it depends on their choice. that's all

it depends on the person. I mean, people have sex for one or the other purpose, it depends on their choice. that's all
I'm talking about the overarching, general purpose. Quite literally, nothing personal.

To produce children, plain and simple

Nice to see heterosexism is alive and well. :rolleyes:

Nice to see heterosexism is alive and well. :rolleyes:




What do you mean? That is the point, to reproduce unless you want pleasure or are homosexual/lesbian and having sex with someone of the same gender.

Looking at the current poll results, do people actually believe that a form of reproduction would have evolved for the purpose of pleasure in an individual, rather than continuity of the species? Individuals are irrelevant to nature. The name of the game is reproduction. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to take a biology class again. Why is it that other species have sex? When spiders have sex, do you think they're doing it because they like it? Especially the male, which often is killed during copulation. Humans are still organisms, and must be treated as such. We cannot put ourselves "above" other forms of life.

The purpose of sex is quite clearly to reproduce.

Looking at the current poll results, do people actually believe that a form of reproduction would have evolved for the purpose of pleasure in an individual, rather than continuity of the species? Individuals are irrelevant to nature. The name of the game is reproduction. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to take a biology class again. Why is it that other species have sex? When spiders have sex, do you think they're doing it because they like it? Especially the male, which often is killed during copulation. Humans are still organisms, and must be treated as such. We cannot put ourselves "above" other forms of life.

i can counter that argument with one word

CLITORIS

it has NO role in reproduction, it is only for sexual pleasure. so WHY would such a thing evolve if sex is only for reproduction?

we arent animals, we have WAY more sex than they do and we are specifically designed to have sex when there is ZERO chance of conception.

sex (while obviously it was "designed" for gene mixing) is, in humans, a mechanism for pleasure and BONDING.

CLITORIS

it has NO role in reproduction, it is only for sexual pleasure. so WHY would such a thing evolve if sex is only for reproduction?
It is just an added bonus for humans

i can counter that argument with one word

CLITORIS

it has NO role in reproduction, it is only for sexual pleasure. so WHY would such a thing evolve if sex is only for reproduction?

we arent animals, we have WAY more sex than they do and we are specifically designed to have sex when there is ZERO chance of conception.

sex (while obviously it was "designed" for gene mixing) is, in humans, a mechanism for pleasure and BONDING.

Apparently, and I don't know how true this is, but the function of the clitoris is to make sure women stay put when they're having sex, i.e: in the past we would've just raped them and so to make sure women didn't do their utmost to leave nature developed a clitoris.

It is just an added bonus for humans

Just out of curiosity, aren't there animals that have sexual organs that don't aide in the reproduction aspect of sex? I'm sure we aren't alone.

What is the purpose of sex?

I don't know anything about porpoise sex. Not much information about dolphin sex, either.

i can counter that argument with one word

CLITORIS

it has NO role in reproduction, it is only for sexual pleasure. so WHY would such a thing evolve if sex is only for reproduction?

we arent animals, we have WAY more sex than they do and we are specifically designed to have sex when there is ZERO chance of conception.

sex (while obviously it was "designed" for gene mixing) is, in humans, a mechanism for pleasure and BONDING.
Because human females have lost œstrus. All that's left now is the slight irritability during menstration. There must be some reason for humans to have sex if there isn't a biological clock telling them when, so humans developed it into a pleasurable experience.

I don't know anything about porpoise sex. Not much information about dolphin sex, either.
Actually, if I recall correctly, humans and dolphins are the only two types of life that feel sexual pleasure in our sense of the word. That could've just been hearsay though, I have no sources.

Actually, if I recall correctly, humans and dolphins are the only two types of life that feel sexual pleasure in our sense of the word. That could've just been hearsay though, I have no sources.




No, its true. Dolphins are the only other animal that feel pleasure during sex besides humans. I'm surprised that certain apes don't.

It's silly to talk about an overriding single purpose of an action. The purpose of an action is different for every person that does it.

It's like saying, what's the purpose of climbing Mount Everest? Some people would do it for fame, some for money, some for internal satisfaction, and condensing all of these into a single purpose is patently impossible and pointless.

No, its true. Dolphins are the only other animal that feel pleasure during sex besides humans. I'm surprised that certain apes don't.
Why thank you, I'll take your word for it. And I too, was quite surprised that porpoises have pleasurable sex, while humans are the only primates.

I think it is for both having children and for fun. Lots of things in nature have more than one purpose, (e.g a mouth can be used for talking or eating) therefore why can't sex have more than one purpose.

It's silly to talk about an overriding single purpose of an action. The purpose of an action is different for every person that does it.

It's like saying, what's the purpose of climbing Mount Everest? Some people would do it for fame, some for money, some for internal satisfaction, and condensing all of these into a single purpose is patently impossible and pointless.
Yes, but is there a biological advantage to climbing Mount Everest? Is it preprogrammed into everyones' genetic material to desire to climb Mount Everest? Are their organs that have developed for the sole purpose of climbing Mount Everest?

I think it is for both having children and for fun. Lots of things in nature have more than one purpose, (e.g a mouth can be used for talking or eating) therefore why can't sex have more than one purpose.
That is only applicable to somatic cells. Germ cells have but one purpose. Sex has but one purpose. To unite two germ cells to make a zygote, resulting in another member of the species when it's all through and done.

Yes, but is there a biological advantage to climbing Mount Everest? Is it preprogrammed into everyones' genetic material to desire to climb Mount Everest? Are their organs that have developed for the sole purpose of climbing Mount Everest?

This makes a difference... why?

Because human females have lost œstrus. All that's left now is the slight irritability during menstration. There must be some reason for humans to have sex if there isn't a biological clock telling them when, so humans developed it into a pleasurable experience.

we have WAY more sex than we need to if its just for reproduction.

if it were just reproduction we wouldnt have lost estrus. women would only be receptive to sex when she was in heat and men would only desire to have sex with those woemn in heat. there would BE no menopause and even if there were, no postmenopausal woman would ever have sex.

the rest of the time we would be celibate.

so there has to be some good (evolutionary) REASON for all this extra sex

is it such a leap to suggest that pleasure and bonding are a part of the equation?

Sex is for reproduction. The pleasure thing is just to give us incentive.

so there has to be some good (evolutionary) REASON for all this extra sex

is it such a leap to suggest that pleasure and bonding are a part of the equation?
Do you seriously believe that anything would evolve just to pleasure an individual? Take some evolutionary biology, and I think you'll find out some fascinating things. And please do not try to lecture nature on what is advantageous to a speices. It is thought that RNA-based viruses evolved from DNA-based viruses. At first, this seems like a disadvantage, but there is always something that is advantageous in evolution, even if we mere humans do not comprehend it. The reason there's all of this so-called superfluous sex is because that is how we evolved. We evolved to have sex constantly, and once in a while an ovum will become fertilsed.

And I think one thing many people are missing is that, until very recently, the infancy and juvenile death rate was astronomically high. Just like all other species, we produce more young than are expected to survive. As inhumane as this sounds, it is the way that nature works. It's only because of modern medicine and hygiene that so many children survive to the stage where is they may reproduce.

It's clear that it has to be for reproduction, without it there wouldn't be generations of people to run the countrys :mp5:

I think there is a conflict here between its purpose, and what it is actually used for in practice. Obviously its purpose is to make babies, but most sexual acts don't use that as a purpose.

erm... sex can have more than one purpose...

the intended purpose is to produce kids... but its the side effect that we want, the pleasure, so we circumvent the purpose with contraceptives and bang - new purpose... pleasure for pleasures end...

It also has a bonding effect in some animals...

I think there is a conflict here between its purpose, and what it is actually used for in practice. Obviously its purpose is to make babies, but most sexual acts don't use that as a purpose.
Well, we all know that. You won't find many who say "I have sex soley to have children". Except for a few devout Catholics or Puritanical extremists. The reason most people have sex is because they enjoy it. The conflict here is why. Why is it that way? And I think I gave a very convincing argument about about infantile and juvenile mortality. Since no-one has bothered to respond.

Reproduction AND pleasure.

We humans have the choice AND the means for either.

Simply put: In the matter of sex, it´s damn fine to be human :)

*starts distributing mini-bibles for the religious ones and contraceptives for the hedonistic ones*

Obviously the most major purpose of sex is procreation, just for the continuation of the species. However, that's merely by design; since humans' evolutionary advantage is the ability to invent, if humans create a way to reproduce without sex (which they pretty much have) and have found other ways for sexual gratification (oral sex being probably the most popular) then sex becomes more about pleasure and procreation has less to do with sex. The two will likely never be completely separate or entwined, meaning sex will always be for both pleasure and procreation.

Surely penetrative vaginal or masterbation are more popular (in terms of occurance...)

Reproduction first, pleasure second.

Do you seriously believe that anything would evolve just to pleasure an individual? Take some evolutionary biology, and I think you'll find out some fascinating things. And please do not try to lecture nature on what is advantageous to a speices. It is thought that RNA-based viruses evolved from DNA-based viruses. At first, this seems like a disadvantage, but there is always something that is advantageous in evolution, even if we mere humans do not comprehend it. The reason there's all of this so-called superfluous sex is because that is how we evolved. We evolved to have sex constantly, and once in a while an ovum will become fertilsed.

And I think one thing many people are missing is that, until very recently, the infancy and juvenile death rate was astronomically high. Just like all other species, we produce more young than are expected to survive. As inhumane as this sounds, it is the way that nature works. It's only because of modern medicine and hygiene that so many children survive to the stage where is they may reproduce.

bad bad humans, thumbing their noses at evolution. i guess its just a happy accident that we have WAY more sex that is necessary for reproduction. that the bonding of sex is meaningless. *shrug* im just glad then that we are more than the sum of our evolution

so what explains the clitoris then? i have one and its ALL about pleasure as far as i can tell.

Well... I could have a shot at explaining it lol...

Female hyneas have what I call (rather crudely yes I know) a "clitty-cock" its effectively a penis without a urthea and its sole function is sexual bonding.

The clitoris is all about pleasure... its a major insentive to have sex (even though for hundreds of years its been called evil - to the point that the catholic chruch advocated pouring acids on it on women who mades use of it...) :)

I just thought this would produce interesting discussion.
among humans, i assume? the purpose of sex is whatever those who engage in it decide it is for...in my case, sex is not for reproduction, but is about physical and emotional pleasure for myself and my partner. for some people, sex is for making babies.

it's like asking what the purpose of a stone is; it can be used for any number of things, based on the desire of the person using it.

as for the rest of the animal kingdom, there is ample evidence of sex being used for purposes other than procreation in many species. anybody who claims sex is only for reproduction needs to take a basic bio class before they embarass themselves :).

bad bad humans, thumbing their noses at evolution. i guess its just a happy accident that we have WAY more sex that is necessary for reproduction. that the bonding of sex is meaningless. *shrug* im just glad then that we are more than the sum of our evolution

so what explains the clitoris then? i have one and its ALL about pleasure as far as i can tell.
Why will you not read what I write? I explained everything above. And no, as much as you'd like it, we are not more than the sum of our evolution. I explained why it is that humans have a lot of sex. I exlplained that individuals really don't matter on an evolutionary scale. I've explained why the clitoris exists. All that's left for you is to read and think. In that order.

as for the rest of the animal kingdom, there is ample evidence of sex being used for purposes other than procreation in many species. anybody who claims sex is only for reproduction needs to take a basic bio class before they embarass themselves :).
Name one, just one other than dolphins. I implore you. I think you're the one in need of biological education in this case.

Thats the trouble though... they don't look at the natural world... they just assume that the preacher telling them its not "natural" is right...

Personally I would love to introduce a homosexual sexaholic gang-bang happy troop of Bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees to everyone else) into a chruch service... that would be enlightening...

Why will you not read what I write? I explained everything above. And no, as much as you'd like it, we are not more than the sum of our evolution. I explained why it is that humans have a lot of sex. I exlplained that individuals really don't matter on an evolutionary scale. I've explained why the clitoris exists. All that's left for you is to read and think. In that order.

You know what? We get it. You know biology. Congratulations, you've proven you're sooo much smarter than us. Perhaps now you can stop with the mental masturbation and the ego tripping and stop insulting everyone who disagrees with you?

Dolphins

Hyenas

Bonobos

Chimpanzees

Humans

Ducks - yes... a homosexual necrophilic duck was found in Amsterdam when it was happily having sex with a dead duck outside the natural history museum...

we have WAY more sex than we need to if its just for reproduction.

if it were just reproduction we wouldnt have lost estrus. women would only be receptive to sex when she was in heat and men would only desire to have sex with those woemn in heat. there would BE no menopause and even if there were, no postmenopausal woman would ever have sex.

the rest of the time we would be celibate.

so there has to be some good (evolutionary) REASON for all this extra sex

is it such a leap to suggest that pleasure and bonding are a part of the equation?

The reason people have lot's of sex is because the male and female cannot be sure when the female is in heat. It is a method to ensure reproduction, even if reproduction only occurs once or twice.

They continue to make use of sex afterwards, but that would be the Id deriving pleasure...

Ducks - yes... a homosexual necrophilic duck was found in Amsterdam when it was happily having sex with a dead duck outside the natural history museum...
freaky... very freaky... :cool:

Name one, just one other than dolphins. I implore you. I think you're the one in need of biological education in this case.
kangaroos, bonobo chimpanzees, babboons, mountain gorillas, penguins, sheep, goats, African lions, bison, gazelles, antelope, sage grouse, walruses...

shall i keep going?

You know what? We get it. You know biology. Congratulations, you've proven you're sooo much smarter than us. Perhaps now you can stop with the mental masturbation and the ego tripping and stop insulting everyone who disagrees with you?
erm, objection...he hasn't proven he knows biology, he hasn't proven he's smarter than us, and he clearly cannot stop with his mental masturbation and ego tripping.

Why will you not read what I write? I explained everything above. And no, as much as you'd like it, we are not more than the sum of our evolution. I explained why it is that humans have a lot of sex. I exlplained that individuals really don't matter on an evolutionary scale. I've explained why the clitoris exists. All that's left for you is to read and think. In that order.
but YOU said "Do you seriously believe that anything would evolve just to pleasure an individual?"

and i pointed out that the clitoris is evovled for the individuals pleasure

and you said way back (while not directly addressing the clitoris) "There must be some reason for humans to have sex if there isn't a biological clock telling them when, so humans developed it into a pleasurable experience."

THE SAME THING

kangaroos, bonobo chimpanzees, babboons, mountain gorillas, penguins, sheep, goats, African lions, bison, gazelles, antelope, sage grouse, walruses...

shall i keep going?
Do you have any proof that any of them have sex for other than reproductive purposes?

freaky... very freaky... :cool:

;) Only in Holland ay? lol

Do you have any proof that any of them have sex for other than reproductive purposes?
i dont know about the rest of those animals but the bonobos are famous for it

Sex is for reproduction, thus making sure the species doesn't cease to exist.

Many people think humans are the only ones enjoying sex, but that's not true. Especially the whale family and the primates do enjoy it too. A chimpanzee-like species called Bonobo apes are even using it as a way to greet eachother.

Maybe I should change my country's national animal to Bonobo... :D

I think we need to say that THE OVERALL PURPOSE of sex is what we're really after. Why does sex exist in the first place?

Sorry to start arguing semantics, but the purpose of sex is reproduction. The reason the act exists is in order to further the existence of life.

Organisms do it for all sorts of reasons, but that's why it's there.

Sorry to start arguing semantics, but the purpose of sex is reproduction. The reason the act exists is in order to further the existence of life.

Organisms do it for all sorts of reasons, but that's why it's there.
*DING DING DING* We have a winner!

Do you have any proof that any of them have sex for other than reproductive purposes?
-articles by John Tidwell
-Bruce Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity
-A Natural History of Homosexuality by Francis Mark Mondimore
-Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape by F. B. M. De Waal
-Promiscuity: An Evolutionary History of Sperm Competition by Tim Birkhead
-Glenn Wilson, The Great Sex Divide, pp. 78-80. Peter Owen (London) 1989; Scott-Townsend (Washington D.C.) 1992
-countless National Geographic articles
-Smithsonian Institute for Natural History (I think you can search through their site, not sure though)

need more?

I know... in the purely semantic form the arguement is flawed... because as I said... if you circumvent the reproductive part with some form of contraception then the purpose is no longer reproduction... =/

-articles by John Tidwell
-Bruce Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity
-A Natural History of Homosexuality by Francis Mark Mondimore
-Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape by F. B. M. De Waal
-Promiscuity: An Evolutionary History of Sperm Competition by Tim Birkhead
-Glenn Wilson, The Great Sex Divide, pp. 78-80. Peter Owen (London) 1989; Scott-Townsend (Washington D.C.) 1992
-countless National Geographic articles
-Smithsonian Institute for Natural History (I think you can search through their site, not sure though)

need more?
Why thank you. I might take a look at some of those. I am in the wrong here, apparently.

That still does not change the fact that the very existence of sex is to propogate the species with genetic variation. Meiosis did not develop so that a few horny animals could get their kicks.

Why thank you. I might take a look at some of those. I am in the wrong here, apparently.

That still does not change the fact that the very existence of sex is to propogate the species with genetic variation. Meiosis did not develop so that a few horny animals could get their kicks.
meiosis and the biologically defined sexual reproduction may have evolved for specifically reproductive purposes, but the machinery that helps us acheive that end has also evolved with other purposes in mind (well, not in MIND, perhaps :P). there are numerous mechanisms through which sexual reproduction can be acheived, but some species have evolved mechanisms that also serve other functions; some species have sexual organs that can serve no purpose other than sexual reproduction, while other species have versetile genetals and versetile behaviors that reflect a much more complex evolutionary drive. it's like how the shape of your arms has been impacted by many different evolutionary pressures, and they have been adapted for multiple simultaneous functions.

I know... in the purely semantic form the arguement is flawed... because as I said... if you circumvent the reproductive part with some form of contraception then the purpose is no longer reproduction... =/
That is entirely a human invention. That is not part of nature at all. Contraceptives are an impossibly recent concept, no more than a few centuries at the most. I doubt it's been more than half a century that we've had condoms, but I really don't know the facts.

How come there's no 'Both'?

A few centuaries?

Try milenia...

Romans had a varity of condoms (personally the entrails of an animal aren't that appealing... but hey...)

Cleopatra is supposed to have used a number of things as barriers...

Run a search on the history of contraceptives... you'll find what you know of them is very much influenced by what religous society has let you know...

meiosis and the biologically defined sexual reproduction may have evolved for specifically reproductive purposes, but the machinery that helps us acheive that end has also evolved with other purposes in mind (well, not in MIND, perhaps :P). there are numerous mechanisms through which sexual reproduction can be acheived, but some species have evolved mechanisms that also serve other functions; some species have sexual organs that can serve no purpose other than sexual reproduction, while other species have versetile genetals and versetile behaviors that reflect a much more complex evolutionary drive. it's like how the shape of your arms has been impacted by many different evolutionary pressures, and they have been adapted for multiple simultaneous functions.
That is true. The penis and urethra serve dual functions in humans. But what can germ cells do? Can they serve multiple purposes?

There are ways that nature has tried to encourage sexual reproduction, such as the human clitoris, but all in all that is just another way propogate the species. What is Darwinism? Survival of the fittest. The ones most suited to their environment get to reproduce. That concept is oddly bereft of sexual pleasure...

A few centuaries?

Try milenia...

Romans had a varity of condoms (personally the entrails of an animal aren't that appealing... but hey...)

Cleopatra is supposed to have used a number of things as barriers...

Run a search on the history of contraceptives... you'll find what you know of them is very much influenced by what religous society has let you know...
Oh...I was worried that might be the case. To be honest, I don't really know anything about modern or past contraceptives. And I don't really know much about religious society, and I doubt that what I do know about them is from religion. It is mainly from sex education, where they basically tell you that if you have sex, you will get HIV and die.

Neither. The purpose of sex is to mix genes. Sex, reproduction, and pleasure don't even have to be related.

... oh, you meant for humans? Oh, well, in that case, the purpose is reproduction. Of course, plenty of us would rather just take the pleasure...

Book Recommendation: Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice To All Creation by Olivia Judson

I have to agree with Zincite: mixing genes. Basically that's what I meant too, just didn't think of stating it that way. (English isn't my native language.) ;)

It's to produce children, but it is an instinct we can now live without.

BTW, I'm glad we are talking about sex in this way, and not just using it as a way of bashing religion, America, or the other favorites.

Surely it is impossible to talk of "purpose" when discussing our biology that has evolved over time seemingly randomly? (I'm assuming you believe in evolution here). The only reason that certain mutations have survived and become normal funtions of the species is because they proved beneficial to the survival of the species at the time they first came into existance. Sex, yes, can result in children (for heterosexual couples anyway) but it clearly produces pleasure too. (I suppose this is beneficial to the survival of the species, because if sex didn't produce pleasure then people would be less likely to do it and therefore less likely to reproduce).
But anyway, we can see how sex has evolved to be the way it is. But my point is this: it was not created or evolved for any purpose specifically. It may be more beneficial to society for people to use it in a certain way, but we cannot argue our views about that from biology.

No, its true. Dolphins are the only other animal that feel pleasure during sex besides humans. I'm surprised that certain apes don't.

look up bonobos

Sexual reproduction. Biology is quite clear on that. The fact that humans find it pleasurable is just an incentive, and was an evolutionary advantage.


Actualy sexual reproduction is a severe disadvantage. Asexual reproduction is the most advantagous. http://www.towson.edu/~scully/sex.html

Actualy sexual reproduction is a severe disadvantage. Asexual reproduction is the most advantagous. http://www.towson.edu/~scully/sex.html
Ha! I admit, I didn't read the article, but I don't need to to know that it's bullsh*t. There have been repeated tests to determine the advantages of sexual reproduction, and they are quite conclusive. If there are no diseases or parasites, then it is true, asexually reproducing species will outcompete sexually reproducing ones. But when there are factors such as disease and parasitism, then sexually reproducing organisms do much, much better.

But anyway, we can see how sex has evolved to be the way it is. But my point is this: it was not created or evolved for any purpose specifically.
I guess you can say that, but it certainly did evolve for the purpose of genetic diversity.

The reason people have lot's of sex is because the male and female cannot be sure when the female is in heat. It is a method to ensure reproduction, even if reproduction only occurs once or twice.

They continue to make use of sex afterwards, but that would be the Id deriving pleasure...

If sex were supposed to be just (or even primarily) for reproduction then there is no reason to believe that humans wouldn't have evolved (or been created for those who believe that) in such a way that receptivity to fertilization was hidden. If sex were primarily for reproduction, human females would have big "do me now" signs like the majority of other animals have. The fact that sex can and does happen - nay, is even desired - outside of actively fertile times, and in fact happens and is desired even by non-fertile people and people who have aged past the point of fertility COUPLED WITH THE FACT that the other BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS triggered by sex ,including release of powerful chemicals in the brain that encourage bonding and affect social behaviors, are in NO WAY LINKED to reproduction strongly point to the fact that in humans, reproduction is the secondary purpose of sex.

Because human females have lost œstrus. All that's left now is the slight irritability during menstration. There must be some reason for humans to have sex if there isn't a biological clock telling them when, so humans developed it into a pleasurable experience.

Did you ever consider that the "biological clock" was lost because reproduction became secondary to the other functions that sex serves?

If sex were primarily for reproduction, human females would have big "do me now" signs like the majority of other animals have. The fact that sex can and does happen - nay, is even desired - outside of actively fertile times, and in fact happens and is desired even by non-fertile people and people who have aged past the point of fertility COUPLED WITH THE FACT that the other BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS triggered by sex ,including release of powerful chemicals in the brain that encourage bonding and affect social behaviors, are in NO WAY LINKED to reproduction strongly point to the fact that in humans, reproduction is the secondary purpose of sex.
That is a very compelling argument. But I have determined is that humans evolved to have sex constantly, and that may be the reason that œstrus is no longer around. Because it is pleasurable, humans will, theoretically, have sex quite often, and thus there is no longer a need for a certain time. So since we should be having sex quite often, since it's so pleasurable, œstrus is superfluous.

I just thought this would produce interesting discussion.


to waste time until we die

Did you ever consider that the "biological clock" was lost because reproduction became secondary to the other functions that sex serves?
Reproduction is never the secondary function of any organism. The purpose of every living thing is to procreate. Even viruses and prions understand that. The only purpose any individual has is to propogate the species. Since the 17-year cicadæ came out this year, I heard a lot of people saying "But what is their purpose?" And the answer is so, so simple. To reproduce, just like everything else living.

Reproduction is never the secondary function of any organism. The purpose of every living thing is to procreate. Even viruses and prions understand that. The only purpose any individual has is to propogate the species. Since the 17-year cicadæ came out this year, I heard a lot of people saying "But what is their purpose?" And the answer is so, so simple. To reproduce, just like everything else living.

Precisely. But humans have to survive a hell of a long time, comparitively, before they can reproduce. Thus mechanisms that encourage social formations (including but not limited to the nuclear family) which will help the offspring survive until an age which it can reproduce take precedence over the actual act of reproduction itself.

Precisely. But humans have to survive a hell of a long time, comparitively, before they can reproduce.
Actually, there's a type of shark, if I recall, that cannot reproduce until it is 20 years old. Male humans can do so around 10, and females whenever they begin menstration.

Thus mechanisms that encourage social formations (including but not limited to the nuclear family) which will help the offspring survive until an age which it can reproduce take precedence over the actual act of reproduction itself.
But how does a society protect against disease? As I said before, the infantile and juvenile mortality rate was incredibly high until very recently. It was previosuly impossible for us to protect against disease and parasites. Thus, it was more important to reproduce. And humans cannot evolve fast enough to catch up with the modern concept of sanitation. We evolve so, oh so slowly because we have but a few generation per century. Sometimes we can't keep up with ourselves.

Actually, there's a type of shark, if I recall, that cannot reproduce until it is 20 years old. Male humans can do so around 10, and females whenever they begin menstration.

I'm not familiar with the species. How well do these sharks survive on their own without adult shark care before they are able to reproduce?


But how does a society protect against disease? As I said before, the infantile and juvenile mortality rate was incredibly high until very recently. It was previosuly impossible for us to protect against disease and parasites. Thus, it was more important to reproduce. And humans cannot evolve fast enough to catch up with the modern concept of sanitation. We evolve so, oh so slowly because we have but a few generation per century. Sometimes we can't keep up with ourselves.

Overtime populations natually build resistance to pathogens. This is probably happening a lot less now that our enviornment is so much more sterile. Most plagues have happened because a new pathogen was introduced into an enviornment. Look at what happened around the time of colonization. Populations that survived one disease quite easily were devistated by the "outside" disease.

Infantile and juvenile mortality were higher, but rates of fertility were not (discounting birth control methods heavily employed in modern times). Having sex at all times to replace population does not result in higher rates of fertilization unless the female are able to be fertilized more often. If anything, a hidden fertility time would hinder population replacement as more resources (calories needed, time, etc) are "wasted" in an attempt to create an offspring at a time when it is biologically not possible.

when people have sex these days it mainly seems to be for pleasure, while nature may not have intended it, that's what its become.

I also think there's a difference between sex and reproduction,

Just to add:

It tends to be much easier to see the physical results of sex (the offspring) than to see the psycholgical results that affect behavior (these last have just begun to be studied recently). It is all too easy to assume that what is easy to see is the "purpose."

The original purpose of sex, was of course, to continue the species. However, it has grown far beyond that. To argue that it should not be done for pleasure because its natural purpose was to produce offspring is as absurd as arguing that we should not listen to music, for that wasn't what our ears were originally for. Just because the original purpose of eating was to provide the body with nutrients doesn't mean that we should all limit ourselves to extraordinarily strict dining that allows for no indulging ourselves with desert now and then.

We use our hands for purposes other than what they were originally for, things like driving cars, writing, art, playing chess, etc. Why should we not use our genitalia for pleasure?

Admittedly I have not read this entire forum, but in what I have read, it seems that no one has addressed the issue of what constitutes sex. In my opinion, the only thing that is actually sex produces children, I do not consider any other activity as sex. The other things i consider pleasure, but sex is for children. Now, consiquently, it is pleasurable and there are people who do it purely for pleasure, especially when parents no longer what children but still want to have sex. I think that even if someone has surgery to prevent pregnancy, it is still sex because it would still produce children without that interference.

Reproduction is never the secondary function of any organism. The purpose of every living thing is to procreate. Even viruses and prions understand that. The only purpose any individual has is to propogate the species. Since the 17-year cicadæ came out this year, I heard a lot of people saying "But what is their purpose?" And the answer is so, so simple. To reproduce, just like everything else living.
the problem that you (and most people) seem to be running into is that you interpret "procreate" as "produce babies," when that is not what the actual laws of selection indicate. reproductive success is defined as an organizm's ability to get its genetic material into the next generation, and there are many situations in which producing young will DECREASE reproductive fitness. there are also many cases where having non-procreative sexual contact will increase reproductive fitness more effectively than having procreative sex.

But the main purpose is not even mentioned: Romance.

I don't know anything about porpoise sex. Not much information about dolphin sex, either.

Okay, that was just bad wordplay on purpose and porpoise.

the problem that you (and most people) seem to be running into is that you interpret "procreate" as "produce babies," when that is not what the actual laws of selection indicate. reproductive success is defined as an organizm's ability to get its genetic material into the next generation, and there are many situations in which producing young will DECREASE reproductive fitness. there are also many cases where having non-procreative sexual contact will increase reproductive fitness more effectively than having procreative sex.
Ok, I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. Are you saying that it is easier to reproduce without having real sex or something? I think that was badly worded, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

Ok, I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. Are you saying that it is easier to reproduce without having real sex or something? I think that was badly worded, because I have no idea what you're talking about.
no, i am saying that getting one's genes into the next generation with maximal success does not always require having procreative sex, and sometimes having procreative sex will reduce one's reproductive fitness.

for example:
females who have recently produced young will reduce their reproductive fitness if they produce another infant or brood too soon; they will be unable to care for either brood effectively, and the likelihood of both broods failing will increase. however, in many species females are seen to welcome sexual contact almost immediately after producing young. this is because, especially in primates, sexual contact is a form of stabilization within a pair bond, and has been proven to increase the likelihood that a male will remain and help care for the brood. with the care of an additional parent, the probability of success of the individual young will increase. alternatively, having non-procreative sex with multiple males can confuse paternity, and can "trick" multiple males into assisting in brood care.

another example:
in several lemur types, there is a high cost of starting a new nest or den due to environmental pressures on the population. as a result, young adult animals that have reached sexual maturity will often remain in their parents' next and assist in rearing their siblings, rather than pursuing their own mate and trying to start a fresh nest. this is because their siblings share 50% of their genes (the same amount their offspring would share), and the environmental costs of starting a new nest outweigh the probable benefits. having procreative sex would decrease their likelihood of getting their genes into the next generation, because they would expend much energy at rearing a brood with a low likelihood of survival...this relates to a key factor in reproductive fitness, which is the survivability of the parent (i.e. if a parent expends too much energy rearing a brood then the parent will reduce it's own fitness.)

another example:
the famous bonobo monkeys use sexual contact to relieve tension within the social group. when food is introduced to classic chimp groups, fighting will often occur between the troop members, often leading to injuries, but among bonobos this is virtually never the case. the troop will have a brief orgy of sexual activity, and then the food will be shared out peacefully. conflicts over dominance, addition of new members to the troop, and disputes over toys and grooming are all observed to be resolved with sex within bonobo troops. this leads to lower injury rates, lower infant mortality rates (since there's a lower chance of infants being injured or killed in the melee of disputes), and higher average reproductive success of bonobo mothers when compared to their more violent cousins due to increased group brood care and grooming behaviors.

these are just a few of the potential situations where procreative sex is not the most evolutionarily stable solution for the reproductive success of an individual. i can give you some more, if you need.

these are just a few of the potential situations where procreative sex is not the most evolutionarily stable solution for the reproductive success of an individual. i can give you some more, if you need.
Thank you for explaining what you meant, and it was sufficient. Through the arguments in this thread, I have been convinced that pleasure is an important part of sex, at least in humans, and apparently several other species. However, I have still not been persuaded that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. If we did not have sex for reproductive purposes, then there would be no humans to have sex. Pleasure and bonding may be secondary, I believe they are now, and are very high up, but there is nothing more important to a species than reproducing.

ok im back
drove 45 miles to walmart to see if they had a nintendo ds in stock. QUIT LAUGHING they could have had one!

sexual pleasure is the mechanism through which sexual reproduction is achieved.

for the first ... million years.... of humanity there was NO understanding that sex causes babies. NONE. NO notion that men had anything whatsoever to do with reproduction.

once we gave up estrus the ONLY vehicle for sexual reproduction was PLEASURE. we do it because we LIKE it and reproduction is an afterthought. if we didnt like it, we wouldnt do it, and there would be no babies. if we didnt like it, we would be using artificial insemination right now for every conception.

sexual pleasure helped ensure that women got the partners they NEEDED in order to survive prenancy, childbirth and lactation. men stayed and put up with the womans babies because well "a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush" if she'd let him have sex with her no need to keep asking around.

so, as i started out with this morning, considering that we can expect to have.....oh lets say 6000 sexual acts in our lives while only producing a handful of children at most, the purpose of sex is to use pleasure to keep a couple together long enough to reproduce and raise children until they can care for themselves.

when people have sex these days it mainly seems to be for pleasure, while nature may not have intended it, that's what its become.

Do you really think that many thousands of years ago, humans didn't enjoy sex. The reason sex is pleasurable is to encourage humans to do it. In this way, reproduction was guaranteed. Now, we have found a way to get around that if we want.

Nice to see so many literal-minded scientists here. :(

Where's the idealism?

You need an option labeled either or. Sex can be used for both depending on what you want from it, it is neither one nor the other.

Thank you for explaining what you meant, and it was sufficient. Through the arguments in this thread, I have been convinced that pleasure is an important part of sex, at least in humans, and apparently several other species. However, I have still not been persuaded that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. If we did not have sex for reproductive purposes, then there would be no humans to have sex. Pleasure and bonding may be secondary, I believe they are now, and are very high up, but there is nothing more important to a species than reproducing.
THERE'S THE PROBLEM!!!!

selection DOES NOT ACT ON A SPECIES! selection acts on the individual, NEVER on the species or group, and i think that might be the fundamental problem we are running into. if you believe that sexual behavior evolved as a result of selective pressure on a species as a whole then that's the error in your thinking. selection simply doesn't work that way.

ok im back
drove 45 miles to walmart to see if they had a nintendo ds in stock. QUIT LAUGHING they could have had one!
Walmart?

for the first ... million years.... of humanity there was NO understanding that sex causes babies. NONE. NO notion that men had anything whatsoever to do with reproduction.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but humanity has only been around for about 20k years. Not a million. And, actually, the semi-modern mindset was that women were just the carrier for the men's seed.

once we gave up estrus the ONLY vehicle for sexual reproduction was PLEASURE. we do it because we LIKE it and reproduction is an afterthought. if we didnt like it, we wouldnt do it, and there would be no babies. if we didnt like it, we would be using artificial insemination right now for every conception.
Exactly! That is the reason we have sex, for pleasure. But the underlying primary purpose is to reproduce.

oh lets say 6000 sexual acts in our lives while only producing a handful of children at most
That's a fairly generous estimate. First of all, most people aren't married all of their lives. Second they may not have sex twice a week. It all depends on the person. Also, as humans get older (past their third decade), they begin to lose their sexual urges. So the amount of sex would decrease there too. I can agree that pleasure and bonding are a part of sex, but not the primary purpose of it.

THERE'S THE PROBLEM!!!!

selection DOES NOT ACT ON A SPECIES! selection acts on the individual, NEVER on the species or group, and i think that might be the fundamental problem we are running into. if you believe that sexual behavior evolved as a result of selective pressure on a species as a whole then that's the error in your thinking. selection simply doesn't work that way.
Umm...no, I'm sorry. Individuals are irrelevant to natural selection. It is the species as a whole. It is the individual that passes down the genes, but it is the species that must benefit.

Walmart?


Sorry to burst your bubble, but humanity has only been around for about 20k years. Not a million. And, actually, the semi-modern mindset was that women were just the carrier for the men's seed.


Exactly! That is the reason we have sex, for pleasure. But the underlying primary purpose is to reproduce.


That's a fairly generous estimate. First of all, most people aren't married all of their lives. Second they may not have sex twice a week. It all depends on the person. Also, as humans get older (past their third decade), they begin to lose their sexual urges. So the amount of sex would decrease there too. I can agree that pleasure and bonding are a part of sex, but not the primary purpose of it.
what? you dont have walmarts where you live? i thought they had taken over the world, not unlike fungus

well i was counting those protohumans too

depends on if you count those instances of sex that dont invovle other people eh? *innocent look*

the purpose of all those superfluous acts of sex were not reprodution now were they? so WAY more sex acts are NOT for reproduction that than those that are.

what? you dont have walmarts where you live? i thought they had taken over the world, not unlike fungus
Oh, I know what they are, I was jsut surprised you chose a Walmart to get a Nintendo DS.

well i was counting those protohumans too
Ah, ok.

depends on if you count those instances of sex that dont invovle other people eh? *innocent look*
Well, I'm not sure if that really constitutes "sex", per se...

the purpose of all those superfluous acts of sex were not reprodution now were they? so WAY more sex acts are NOT for reproduction that than those that are.
That is true, but the underlying purpose for the drive to have sex is indeed reproduction. Not that it does not also serve other functions now, as I have been convinced. It's just that there is nothing more important to a species than propogation.

Umm...no, I'm sorry. Individuals are irrelevant to natural selection. It is the species as a whole. It is the individual that passes down the genes, but it is the species that must benefit.


SELECTION acts on the individual. The individual passes along genes (including those containing any mutations). The "fittest" individuals survive longer, have more mating chances, etc. Selection may benefit the species as a whole, may over time change the characteristics of the species as a whole, but it does so by acting on the individuals.

SELECTION acts on the individual. The individual passes along genes (including those containing any mutations). The "fittest" individuals survive longer, have more mating chances, etc. Selection may benefit the species as a whole, may over time change the characteristics of the species as a whole, but it does so by acting on the individuals.
Yes, I meant to say that. My diction was terrible, but I was trying to say that.

Yes, I meant to say that. My diction was terrible, but I was trying to say that.

It's ok. This is probably worded a bit awkwardly too.

So selection works on individuals, but survival of a species is based on the group. As such, it is not necessary, or even necessarily desirable, that all members of the species create offspring. So while there may be nothing more important to the species than reproducing, this is not necessarily true of the individual.

In species where the females go through estrus, there is usually a lot of competing, often taking the form of fighting and killing, among the males for the right to limited procreation. This would cull many individuals.

In other species, such as humans, where raising the young is labor intensive, culling individuals is not so desirable. Also, the non-culling strategy leads to greater genetic diversity (and protection against non-viability caused by certain recessive genes hooking up together in the same conceptus, which happens a lot in humans), as it does not lead to as many cases of one male producing multiple broods.

So, the non-baby producing aspects of the entire reproductive process become more important when the social structure of the species promotes the survival of the species more than an individual passing along genetic material does.

That's a fairly generous estimate. First of all, most people aren't married all of their lives. Second they may not have sex twice a week. It all depends on the person. Also, as humans get older (past their third decade), they begin to lose their sexual urges. So the amount of sex would decrease there too. I can agree that pleasure and bonding are a part of sex, but not the primary purpose of it.

Pssst. Unmarried people actually do have sex. They also *gasp* sometimes produce offspring. As for the sexual urges thing, speak for yourself, I'm in my forties and I don't feel them any less.


The primary purpose of sex is to see God. Didn't you know?

If you haven't seen him yet you're not doing it right. ;)

well most people go for both,

pleasure- it feels good, its fun...heh, i sound like a perv don't I?

producing- Make kids and save the world, no more kids and the world is doomed, so get in those beds!

Pssst. Unmarried people actually do have sex. They also *gasp* sometimes produce offspring. As for the sexual urges thing, speak for yourself, I'm in my forties and I don't feel them any less.


The primary purpose of sex is to see God. Didn't you know?

If you haven't seen him yet you're not doing it right. ;)
Well, first of all, I'm 15. I haven't had sex yet. I'll look for God when I do, and I'll tell him that you said hi. Second, I'm pretty sure thay everyone's more horny when they're teenagers than at any other time in their life. And I was just guessing at the time, but I'm pretty sure that as you get older and older, your sexual drive becomes less. But that may just depend on the person, those have just been my observations of the people around me.

producing- Make kids and save the world, no more kids and the world is doomed, so get in those beds!
And save humanity. The world is actually being hurt by us, so to stop ahving sex would probably actually be better for the world. That's not gonna stop me when I get my chance, though ;) .

Well, this forum is going to have skewed views, because you have a lot of teenagers here who think, "OMG teh sex roxorx t3h big one!!111oneshiftone!" And they, of course, will completely ignore the biological aspect of it, and again, think "OMG SECS!!!11"

Well, first of all, I'm 15. I haven't had sex yet. I'll look for God when I do, and I'll tell him that you said hi. Second, I'm pretty sure thay everyone's more horny when they're teenagers than at any other time in their life. And I was just guessing at the time, but I'm pretty sure that as you get older and older, your sexual drive becomes less. But that may just depend on the person, those have just been my observations of the people around me.
you may be hornier when you are 15 but you have more opportunity as a mature adult, especially if you are in a loving relationship.

Well, this forum is going to have skewed views, because you have a lot of teenagers here who think, "OMG teh sex roxorx t3h big one!!111oneshiftone!" And they, of course, will completely ignore the biological aspect of it, and again, think "OMG SECS!!!11"
are you suggesting that older people think of sex as a biology thing rather than a great pleasure of life?

are you suggesting that older people think of sex as a biology thing rather than a great pleasure of life?Not at all. I mean, when I'm having sex, I'm probably not going to be thinking about the biological reason I'm having sex, but I understand that the entire reason we are capable of having sex is for reproduction. If we simply divided like amoebas, we wouldn't have sexual organs.

you may be hornier when you are 15 but you have more opportunity as a mature adult, especially if you are in a loving relationship.
Well, that really depends on you area and "class", as much as I hate to use that word. Not necessarily socio-economic, maybe just cultural

Looking at the current poll results, do people actually believe that a form of reproduction would have evolved for the purpose of pleasure in an individual, rather than continuity of the species? Individuals are irrelevant to nature. The name of the game is reproduction. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to take a biology class again. Why is it that other species have sex? When spiders have sex, do you think they're doing it because they like it? Especially the male, which often is killed during copulation. Humans are still organisms, and must be treated as such. We cannot put ourselves "above" other forms of life.

But humans are social. While sex can create offspring, it also acts to strengthen bonds and reduce stress. Many social animals show signs of sexual activity in periods where they *cannot* be attempting to produce offspring (mating when the female is obviously not in heat, or with another sub-species, or homosexual sex).

Also, if we mated soley to produce children, can you explain why human women don't have a period of time when they are 'in heat'? So far, I've heard it explained that it's better (socially) if men don't know when women are fertile, because then they hang around for sex for a much longer period, which leads to stronger social bonds etc.

I chose pleasure, simply because it fits my view better, but 'Social bonding' would have been a better option for me.

Well, that really depends on you area and "class", as much as I hate to use that word. Not necessarily socio-economic, maybe just cultural
what does THAT mean?

i think it depends on health, hormones, and the kind of relationship you have

adults you know are having more sex than you think they are.

what does THAT mean?

i think it depends on health, hormones, and the kind of relationship you have

adults you know are having more sex than you think they are.
Well, my mother is around 40, my father is about a decade older, and they sleep on different floors. It's not because they have any marital troubles or anything, my father just doesn't like my mother's slepping habits and heat preferences. And I know for a fact my dad has not slept in the same bed as my mother for quite a long while.

Edit:
What I meant is the lower "classes" have sex much more than the higher ones.

oh oh i thought of another angle that will make ME right.

WHOSE purpose?

if the answer is PEOPLE'S, and there is no reason why that can't be the answer since it was never specified...

*hosies 'people' as the answer*

then PLEASURE is the correct answer. 99% of all sex is done with the DREAD of potential reproduction. and while it may fall short of 99% of the time being GREAT, it is at least most often intended to be a pleasure.

Well, my mother is around 40, my father is about a decade older, and they sleep on different floors. It's not because they have any marital troubles or anything, my father just doesn't like my mother's slepping habits and heat preferences. And I know for a fact my dad has not slept in the same bed as my mother for quite a long while.

Edit:
What I meant is the lower "classes" have sex much more than the higher ones.
you certainly know your parents better than i do but that doesnt mean they arent having sex.

oh you are gonna make me google that whole class and sex thing, i dont think youre right. lemme give it a try on google

Why does it exist?
Make kids. That should be obvious.

Why do most people have it?
Pleasure. That too should be obvious.

you certainly know your parents better than i do but that doesnt mean they arent having sex.
That's entirely possible, but I doubt it. I just go from what I observe, which brought me to that conclusion.

oh you are gonna make me google that whole class and sex thing, i dont think youre right. lemme give it a try on google
Oh, I really don't know the actual statistics. I just go with what I observe personally, as I said before. Last year, the school I went to was overall middle to upper-middle class. The school I go to now is basically made up of people lower down (again, not actually socio-economically, but kind of rebelliously and culturally), and it seems to me that they have had much more sex than the people at my old school.

That's entirely possible, but I doubt it. I just go from what I observe, which brought me to that conclusion.


Oh, I really don't know the actual statistics. I just go with what I observe personally, as I said before. Last year, the school I went to was overall middle to upper-middle class. The school I go to now is basically made up of people lower down (again, not actually socio-economically, but kind of rebelliously and culturally), and it seems to me that they have had much more sex than the people at my old school.
well i crapped out. i hate it when i cant figure out what to put into google to get the results that i know are out there somewhere

ooohhh you mean teens. that MIGHT be true. or they might just only have sex as a thing to brag about. one thing i DO know... everyone lies about sex.

so kids at your old school may have been having sex they werent talking about, the kids at your new school may be exaggerating their experience. or they might all be telling the dead on truth. no way to know.

Sexual reproduction. Biology is quite clear on that. The fact that humans find it pleasurable is just an incentive, and was an evolutionary advantage.

Wrong. While the pleasure may have *initially* been simply an incentive, in social animals (like primates), sex is used, not only to produce offspring, but also to reduce tensions and reinforce the bonds between members. *Both* are evolutionary advantages that are necessary in many social animals.

To the poll-maker, you should have had an option for both.

Regardless of what secondary functions it serves on a case-by-case basis, the simple fact of the matter is that its primary, and only universal function is reproduction...

Thus, it's only natural function is reproduction... It was only intended for that ("intended" does not imply a higher, sentient power governing this... I just mean that the systems that have evolved have evolved for one "intended" purpose)...

Sure, it may serve many other functions, and have all kinds of other benefits to some creatures here and there... But, if it's not a universal function, then that's obviously not what it is meant for, or what it is fundamentally used for...

Anything extra on top of that might be an added benefit, but it is something "concocted" by those individual creatures...not by the overall base design...

I mean, sex for some hypothetical creature might also cause it to grow larger, or act as nutritional sustenance... But since it doesn't do that for all creatures, then those benefits aren't anything to do with the primary purpose...

In short, social animals may use it for other things, but that's not what it is used for (there's a distinction there, whether or not that sounds like one)...

Like someone mentioned in another thread from a while back (paraphrased):

"I can use my mouse pad to open jars, but that's not what it is meant to do..."

Can we settle on "to orgasm"? Because that satisfies the one side that says it's all about procreating, what with the explusion of seed for the male and such, and the side that says it's all about recreating, what with the pleasurable experience and so forth.

Biologically speaking, sex is to reproduce - this is the primary function - we evolved to enjoy it because it made us more likely to engage in it. So, both are right, but the reproduction bit came first.

THe purpose of sex is to give me something to do with my genitals other than abuse them during rugby games. :)

only two species have sex for pleasure... Humans and Dolphins. Who did this study and how this was determined... I don't wanna know...

Scientists on the genome project have found females of the species carry a gene that stimulates areas of the brain when they sleep on a wet spot.
This stimulation can lead to cases of levitation.
It must br true, cause my wife hits the roof.
:D

The whole phrasing of this question and poll implies a gross misunderstanding of the issue. Obviously any continuity of species/gene 'benefits' derived from sex will be benefits that play of role in increasing reproductive success, but that is entirely different to saying that sex's only role is to cause fertilisation of the ova.

Sex's purpose was to reproduce, because it's a wonderous evolutionary advantage to merge the DNA of two successful organisms. But, being humans, we've really removed sex from it's primal origins, introduction contraceptives and such.

We abuse sex's pleasurable effects, but the purpose is inevitebly the same as it was when it first appeared in natural history.

Sex's purpose was to reproduce, because it's a wonderous evolutionary advantage to merge the DNA of two successful organisms. But, being humans, we've really removed sex from it's primal origins, introduction contraceptives and such.

We abuse sex's pleasurable effects, but the purpose is inevitebly the same as it was when it first appeared in natural history.
If we untangle your assertion it doesnt make any sense. It is clear from your comments that sex is not necessary (although apparently advantageous) for reproduction, so sex's purpose cannot be reproduction.

Reproduction by itself (that is fertilisation that results in a viable offspring) is not the same as reproductive success. Human sexuality benefits human reproductive success, but that is not the same as saying that it's only purpose is to facilitate fertilisation and birth of a viable offspring. If you want to be fundamental and essentialist, yes the role of sex is to contribute to reproductive success, but so are the roles of sleeping and eating....

Regardless of what secondary functions it serves on a case-by-case basis, the simple fact of the matter is that its primary, and only universal function is reproduction...

Thus, it's only natural function is reproduction... It was only intended for that ("intended" does not imply a higher, sentient power governing this... I just mean that the systems that have evolved have evolved for one "intended" purpose)...

Sure, it may serve many other functions, and have all kinds of other benefits to some creatures here and there... But, if it's not a universal function, then that's obviously not what it is meant for, or what it is fundamentally used for...

Anything extra on top of that might be an added benefit, but it is something "concocted" by those individual creatures...not by the overall base design...

I mean, sex for some hypothetical creature might also cause it to grow larger, or act as nutritional sustenance... But since it doesn't do that for all creatures, then those benefits aren't anything to do with the primary purpose...

In short, social animals may use it for other things, but that's not what it is used for (there's a distinction there, whether or not that sounds like one)...

Like someone mentioned in another thread from a while back (paraphrased):

"I can use my mouse pad to open jars, but that's not what it is meant to do..."

If I make a can opener, and then modify it so that it is a combination bottle opener/can opener, it's purpose is now equally can opening and bottle opening. Other can openers are still primarily just for can opening, but mine is for can opening and bottle opening.

Do you see the difference?

"Biological purpose" is, of necessity, species-specific. Nearly all higher-order animals we have studied have developed sexual behaviors for purposes other than procreation. Thus, in those species, sexual behavior is equally "meant" for procreation *and* other effects, such as social ones.

only two species have sex for pleasure... Humans and Dolphins. Who did this study and how this was determined... I don't wanna know...

Actually, Bonobos (Pygmy Chimps) also have sex for pleasure.

I find it interesting that people are split more evenly on this issue than on gay marriage...seems like the results should be more consistant. Hmm...

Comments?

I find it interesting that people are split more evenly on this issue than on gay marriage...seems like the results should be more consistant. Hmm...

Comments?

I dunno, technically, the answer is both - so the poll is flawed. I just didn't answer.

Sex is not an entity. It has no desire or purpose.

You're right, the poll is flawed, in such a way that it should be even closer to the gay marriage poll results than it would be if it were not. Thanks for pointing that out. Now I think people are even more hypocritical than before. Wow.

Regardless of what secondary functions it serves on a case-by-case basis, the simple fact of the matter is that its primary, and only universal function is reproduction...

If the primary purpose of humans having sex was children, the odds of conception wouldn't be so low, and we'd know when women were fertile - which most other species do.
The primary reason for humans to have sex is social, to create links between people. Humans need social connections to survive. Until those conections have been created, having children is counterproductive, as you won't be able to look after them, and (depending on when/where you are) may not survive yourself.

Sex, like everything else, has no purpose other than what we give it.

You're right, the poll is flawed, in such a way that it should be even closer to the gay marriage poll results than it would be if it were not. Thanks for pointing that out. Now I think people are even more hypocritical than before. Wow.

I think your logic is flawed.

You obviously think that *anyone* who votes for the right of homosexuals to marry must think that the main purpose of sex is pleasure. This is a false assertion.

The primary purpose of sex is to see God. Didn't you know?

If you haven't seen him yet you're not doing it right. ;)Your right.

Me and the wife had an extended audiance with him just last night.

Plan on seeing him again soon.

The primary function of anything is that which necessitated its existence... Whatever "force" required that a certain system be set up, that "force" is the purpose of that system...

Sex was "created" as a means to reproduce... Therefore, that is its primary purpose...

No matter what extra functions have been attached to it, sex exists because it is a method of reproduction... That may not be what some use it for, but that is what it was created for (again, "created" isn't meant in a "Creator" kind of way)...

So again, that simply has to be considered its primary purpose...

Sex most likely came about long before creatures were capable of feeling pleasure, or emotions... Sex most likely came about long before any animals needed pair bonding or tension relief... Failing either of those assertions, though, sex most certainly came about long before humans...

Its purpose was defined before we ever got to it... We can't just redefine it because we use it for other things... We can add to it... But we can't replace what gave "birth" to it... And that is the system of joining the reproductive cell from a male with that from a female, with the goal of producing offspring...

Now, I guess we get into the gray area of what "sex" we're talking about...

I'd say that for those of you who are arguing that pleasure, pair bonding, etc are its primary functions, you are referring to the act... While those of us who are arguing for reproduction, we are referring to the intended result of the act... "Sex" in this sense does not have to mean "insert tab A into slot B"... This "sex" refers to sexual reproduction in all of its forms, with or without physical contact...

Now, "sex" as in "intercourse", that evolved as a pleasurable way to entice creatures to reproduce... So in a way, its first goal is pleasure... But that is only the purpose for having that form of sex, it is not why we have sex to begin with ("we" meaning sexually reproducing creatures of all kinds, not just humans)...

So I guess it doesn't really matter if we make that distinction after all, because even the act has the underlying and driving goal of reproducing offspring, it's just a clever trick to get us to do it (pun not intended, but I wish it was...lol)

And, whether or not an individual is conscious of this drive is irrelevant... You don't have to be engaging in sex with the goal of having children for sex to still have the purpose of having children... It's still there, regardless of whether we ignore it or not... Or try to cover it up with other desires... Or use it for other ends... These are all "abuses" of its naturally intended goal...

SSGX, things that are not necessary exist. Your theory presumes that things exist because they fufill some useful need, that isnt necessarily so.

Sex is not necessary for reproduction, nor for reproductive success. Human sexuality includes aspects that can be seen as adaptive, if adaptive is defined as contributing to reproductive success. Again I point out the difference between fertilisation and reproductive success. The first is meaningless unless it is a contributing factor in an instance of the latter...

If God didn't want us to enjoy sex, he would have made us asexual.

So to conclude this piece of research:

Half of the world's population want to do it every... oh... minute. The other half only is they want a baby.

SSGX, things that are not necessary exist. Your theory presumes that things exist because they fufill some useful need, that isnt necessarily so.

Sex is not necessary for reproduction, nor for reproductive success. Human sexuality includes aspects that can be seen as adaptive, if adaptive is defined as contributing to reproductive success.

I don't mean to suggest that all things are necessary in order to exist (even though it does sound that way, I suppose)... What I mean is more like, "things that fulfill a need exist because of that need"...

But at any rate, apparently sexual reproduction was viewed at some point to be an advantage, and thus, a need...

"Sex" as we know it became the most popular form among complex organisms to acheive that goal... And thus, it was filling that need... The need creates a niche, and intercourse happened to fill it the best...

It may not be necessary for reproduction (and it obviously isn't, since there are many other methods out there), but it's one of the methods that was "picked" and is favored among the majority...

It may very well have been favored simply because of its side effects, like pair bonding, and other social functions... So no, I'm not saying those aren't important in some fashion to the whole proposition... However, it wasn't created for those... Those side effects are just that... It was created (or chosen, rather) solely as a means to sexually reproduce... It just happened to be favored because it turned out to be the most productive... But anyways, that doesn't change the fact that it began as a method of reproduction, not as a method of bonding...

Again I point out the difference between fertilisation and reproductive success. The first is meaningless unless it is a contributing factor in an instance of the latter...

I find this point to be rather silly... Fertilization is THE contributing factor in reproductive success... Without it, the venture never gets off the ground (in terms of sexually reproducing species)... So the only factor that is relavent in this discussion is this very one... Raising children has nothing to do with creating them... You can successfully create a child without successfully raising them... It does not work the other way around (no adoption cracks or anything... I mean you can't successfully raise your own child without creating it first)... It may not work well without successful raising (as in it won't result in many long-term additions to the species), but it simply does not work at all without the initial creation...

Sex may contribute in many ways to the successful raising of children, but it makes its largest contribution (the only 100% universally necessary contribution among sexually reproducing organisms which do so through sexual intercourse) in the joining of the reproductive cells...

Since sex is the means to that end, sex must be designed for that goal...

I don't mean to suggest that all things are necessary in order to exist (even though it does sound that way, I suppose)... What I mean is more like, "things that fulfill a need exist because of that need"...

But at any rate, apparently sexual reproduction was viewed at some point to be an advantage, and thus, a need...
Viewed by whom?

"Sex" as we know it became the most popular form among complex organisms to acheive that goal... And thus, it was filling that need... The need creates a niche, and intercourse happened to fill it the best...
Popular implies some form of choice, we dont choose whether or not our species is 'sexualised'.

It may not be necessary for reproduction (and it obviously isn't, since there are many other methods out there), but it's one of the methods that was "picked" and is favored among the majority...
It wasnt picked, and for the most part favour has not come into it.

It may very well have been favored simply because of its side effects, like pair bonding, and other social functions...
Favoured by whom? We dont get to pick our sexual biological configurations.

So no, I'm not saying those aren't important in some fashion to the whole proposition... However, it wasn't created for those...
Unless you intend to make the discussion a theological one, sex wasnt created.

Those side effects are just that... It was created (or chosen, rather) solely as a means to sexually reproduce...
Chosen by who?

It just happened to be favored because it turned out to be the most productive... But anyways, that doesn't change the fact that it began as a method of reproduction, not as a method of bonding...
What something began us doesnt alone prove what it currently is.

I find this point to be rather silly...
I suspect this is because you are confusing necessary condition with sufficient condition.

Fertilization is THE contributing factor in reproductive success... Without it, the venture never gets off the ground
Fertilisation is a necessary not a sufficient condition for reproductive success.

(in terms of sexually reproducing species)... So the only factor that is relavent in this discussion is this very one... Raising children has nothing to do with creating them...
Of course these things are related. However I suspect that for the purposes of this discussion the most important relationship between them is their importance in reproductive success. You see giving birth to offspring is not in and of itself reproductive success, it is only one necessary condition of such success.

You can successfully create a child without successfully raising them... It does not work the other way around (no adoption cracks or anything... I mean you can't successfully raise your own child without creating it first)... It may not work well without successful raising (as in it won't result in many long-term additions to the species), but it simply does not work at all without the initial creation...
Reproductive success doesnt refer to successfully creating another lifeform, but rather producing a viable reproductive offspring....reproductive success is measured in generations of births, not in individual births. Individual births are necessary but not sufficient conditions for reproductive success of a species.

Sex may contribute in many ways to the successful raising of children, but it makes its largest contribution (the only 100% universally necessary contribution among sexually reproducing organisms which do so through sexual intercourse) in the joining of the reproductive cells...

Since sex is the means to that end, sex must be designed for that goal...
Sex wasnt designed.....

Major note: All references I make to "intent", "design", "choice", "favor", etc are not meant to imply a sentient power... I'm only using those terms because they are convenient labels for the processes involved...

Evolution is essentially a lottery... Changes occur randomly (or seemingly so), and those changes that work well tend to stick around and spread... This is because those creatures that make the random changes that end up working well, tend to be better equipped, and more likely to pass on their genetic material... The change becomes more and more concrete with each passing generation after...

So anyways, the term "intent" doesn't imply that some thinking being wanted it to be that way, but rather, that natural forces made something favorable, and the result was "intended" by those forces (again, don't think in literal terms... think in "personified" terms)

Same with "favored"... Nothing made a conscious decision that "I like this better than this"... It is that natural forces favor a certain change or system over another... That change or system works better within the conditions present, and so, it is "favored" over others...

Same with "viewed"... I'm not saying anyone is watching the process... I'm saying that the forces that drive evolution and natural selection "view" certain things as being better than others...

And so on... I'm positive you didn't really miss all that, though, and you're just being nitpicky about it for the sake of "argument"...

Viewed by whom?

Popular implies some form of choice, we dont choose whether or not our species is 'sexualised'.

It wasnt picked, and for the most part favour has not come into it.

Favoured by whom? We dont get to pick our sexual biological configurations.

Unless you intend to make the discussion a theological one, sex wasnt created.

Chosen by who?

All of these are rendered null and void by the note above... Again, you seem as if you're just being argumentative...

What something began us doesnt alone prove what it currently is.

Perhaps not always, but when that thing hasn't fundamentally changed from its beginnings, it certainly speaks volumes...


I suspect this is because you are confusing necessary condition with sufficient condition.

Fertilisation is a necessary not a sufficient condition for reproductive success.

Of course these things are related. However I suspect that for the purposes of this discussion the most important relationship between them is their importance in reproductive success. You see giving birth to offspring is not in and of itself reproductive success, it is only one necessary condition of such success.

Reproductive success doesnt refer to successfully creating another lifeform, but rather producing a viable reproductive offspring....reproductive success is measured in generations of births, not in individual births. Individual births are necessary but not sufficient conditions for reproductive success of a species.

In many cases, reproduction is the only factor in reproductive success... Many sexually reproducing species do not care for their young, and they get along just fine...

Not all sexually reproducing creatures are like this, so you're right that specialization does make certain requirements in some species that others do not have...

However, they all share one common need... They all need to create the children... Therefore, that's the most important factor... I shouldn't even have to explain that... It's just common sense... You can't raise children without making them... Everything else involced is a moot point if you don't have the means to make babies...

So which came first? The need to make babies, or the need to raise them? Obviously, the need to make them... So, the systems that arose to do so, obviously have that goal "in mind" (don't you dare quote that one and say "but they don't have a "mind".. you know very well what I mean) long before they had any other goal or benefit in mind...

So again, it doesn't matter what other specialized requirements cropped up, or what other benefits happened to come along with it, sex was "created" (grrr) with the sole purpose of making babies...

Sex wasnt designed.....

Again, see the first part of this post...

Major note: All references I make to "intent", "design", "choice", "favor", etc are not meant to imply a sentient power... I'm only using those terms because they are convenient labels for the processes involved...

Evolution is essentially a lottery... Changes occur randomly (or seemingly so), and those changes that work well tend to stick around and spread... This is because those creatures that make the random changes that end up working well, tend to be better equipped, and more likely to pass on their genetic material... The change becomes more and more concrete with each passing generation after...

So anyways, the term "intent" doesn't imply that some thinking being wanted it to be that way, but rather, that natural forces made something favorable, and the result was "intended" by those forces (again, don't think in literal terms... think in "personified" terms)

Same with "favored"... Nothing made a conscious decision that "I like this better than this"... It is that natural forces favor a certain change or system over another... That change or system works better within the conditions present, and so, it is "favored" over others...

Same with "viewed"... I'm not saying anyone is watching the process... I'm saying that the forces that drive evolution and natural selection "view" certain things as being better than others...

And so on... I'm positive you didn't really miss all that, though, and you're just being nitpicky about it for the sake of "argument"...
The reason I pointed it out is because if you accept that sex is not designed and that any benefits are not intended, but rather incidental, then the argument that one benefit is more or less intended is spurious.

All of these are rendered null and void by the note above... Again, you seem as if you're just being argumentative...
The point is materially relevent because your argument doesnt actually succeed unless it assumes some form of intent with regards to human sexuality existing.

Perhaps not always, but when that thing hasn't fundamentally changed from its beginnings, it certainly speaks volumes...
No it only speaks volumes in certain circumstances. It could imply much or nothing, but by itself we can deduce little of value from knowing somethings beginnings alone.

In many cases, reproduction is the only factor in reproductive success... Many sexually reproducing species do not care for their young, and they get along just fine...
We are not talking about 'any cases' or 'many cases' so much as specifically in human beings (or at least that is what I am discussing). Evidently even species that dont care for their young must do more to ensure reproductive success than engage in an act that causes fertilisation.

Not all sexually reproducing creatures are like this, so you're right that specialization does make certain requirements in some species that others do not have...
It's human sexuality that I am discussing, and the facts as they apply to human beings make a very convincing argument that sex has a beneficial role in human reproductive success far beyond merely being the means of fertilisation.

However, they all share one common need... They all need to create the children... Therefore, that's the most important factor...
An important factor does not eclipse other important factors. I dont deny that sex is a means of causing fertilisation.

I shouldn't even have to explain that... It's just common sense... You can't raise children without making them... Everything else involced is a moot point if you don't have the means to make babies...
So far as reproductive success of the species is concerned having babies is pointless if having those babies doesnt result in reproductive success. If you have 500 babies and they all die before they reach reproductive maturity, not one of those 500 births has contributed directly to reproductive success.

So which came first? The need to make babies, or the need to raise them?
It doesnt matter which came first, the need to get to reproductive maturity in order to be a contributing factor to reproductive sex is as necessary as the need to be born, the order in which they occur does not change this fact.

Obviously, the need to make them... So, the systems that arose to do so, obviously have that goal "in mind" (don't you dare quote that one and say "but they don't have a "mind".. you know very well what I mean) long before they had any other goal or benefit in mind...
Sex is not the only means of producing offspring, so there is no reason why sex would arise and continue unless it offered other advantages different or additional to those that nonsexual reproduction produce. So sex does create offspring, but so do other processes, however not all processes of reproducing offspring includes all the aspects that sexual reproduction does. Those facts alone indicate to me that reproduction (not unique to sex) is not more the 'reason for sex' than aspects of sexual reproduction that are not inherent to other forms of reproduction.

So again, it doesn't matter what other specialized requirements cropped up, or what other benefits happened to come along with it, sex was "created" (grrr) with the sole purpose of making babies...
We can reproduce without sex so sex isnt only a means of reproducing, and further it is a means that has flourished so it must have benefits other than reproduction....since sex isnt necessary for reproduction it is reasonable to assume that the other benefits it provides are the true reasons why it has proven to be adaptive.