NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently it has been argued that the chief reason for sex is procreation.

This is simply not factually true.

You see, when two people have sex, a number of biological probabilities are taken into account.

one is the probability of the sex act resulting in reproduction

another is the sex act resulting in pleasure.

The chance of reproduction being the outcome of the sex act is relatively low.

The chance of pleasure being the outcome is essentially one hundred percent.

It is even naturally possible to have sex with no possibility of the woman becoming pregnant, this is done through timing of the menstrual cycles.


Reproduction can be seen as a secondary function of the sex act, as it is significantly less likely than the primary function of pleasure.

*hands Granada a cookie*

You see, when two people agree on something, wonderful things can happen. That wonderful thing is the cookie.

what happens when three people agree on something, as is the case here?

Bear in mind that this is Nationstates General.

*hands Jordaxia a cookie*

That's what happens.

Well, from an evolutionary perspective, sex clearly is a mechanism for reproduction, which is why we have evolved to enjoy it, need it, and depend on it so much.

But I agree, in today's society sex is not only or mostly employed for procreation, though that's, ultimately, its most important role--> the continuation of the species.

The Naked Ape? I got most of my arguments from Desmond Morris myself. He agrees with your assertion that Pregnancy is only one outcome of sex, and certainly not the chief one.

After all, Human beings live a long time after they can no longer produce children. Do we mean to say that the elderly are left out of the sexual equation? Has sex, for them, "outlived its usefulness?"

After all, Human beings live a long time after they can no longer produce children. Do we mean to say that the elderly are left out of the sexual equation? Has sex, for them, "outlived its usefulness?"From an evolutionary, species-survival standpoint, yes. But I doubt many of us are concerned with the Human race dieing out anytime soon. pregnancy is definately only a small fraction of the concequences, and reasons for sex.

in order for a species to survive you have to fuck and one way to entice the species is by making it pleasurable and desirable.

The Naked Ape? I got most of my arguments from Desmond Morris myself. He agrees with your assertion that Pregnancy is only one outcome of sex, and certainly not the chief one.

After all, Human beings live a long time after they can no longer produce children. Do we mean to say that the elderly are left out of the sexual equation? Has sex, for them, "outlived its usefulness?"
Ah no Grandmothers help look after babies Grandpas go hunting!
My maybe the pleasure is to encourag people to hsve sex because none really wants kids?

How can we account for Gay sex as an instinctual evolutionary instinct to procreate? I myself am puzzled by this...

How can we account for Gay sex as an instinctual evolutionary instinct to procreate? I myself am puzzled by this...
Ooohh, good one! it's definately not evolutionarily advantageous, but has certainly been observed in animals, and definately been present throughout Human history. That's got me wondering...

Anyone have a theory?

A fisherman goes out on the lake to catch some trout. More often than not, he catches nothing. Does that the main "chief reason" he goes fishing is to not catch fish?

A man goes to the theatre at least once a week to watch a movie. He tries to only see movies he thinks that he'll like. However, more often than not, he's left unsatisfied with the result. Does that mean the "chief reason" to go to the theatre is to watch bad movies?

An archaeologist spends vast amounts of time looking for the remains of a human civilization. Usually, all he finds is rocks and dirt. Does this mean that the main purpose of the archaeologist is to find rocks and dirt?

in order for a species to survive you have to fuck and one way to entice the species is by making it pleasurable and desirable.
then how come it is displeasurable for so many species?

A fisherman goes out on the lake to catch some trout. More often than not, he catches nothing. Does that the main "chief reason" he goes fishing is to not catch fish?

A man goes to the theatre at least once a week to watch a movie. Though he tries to only see movies he thinks that he'll like. However, more often than not, he's left unsatisfied with the result. Does that mean the "chief reason" to go to the theatre is to watch bad movies?

An archaeologist spends vast amounts of time looking for the remains of a human civilization. Usually, all he find his rocks and dirt. Does this mean that the main purpose of the archaeologist is to find rocks and dirt?
Cute scenarios, but most people that have sex AREN'T "trying to catch fish", "watch good movies" or "find ancient civilizations". All they want to do is to splash around in the water, make out in the theatre, and play in the sand.

then how come it is displeasurable for so many species?Such as...?

How can we account for Gay sex as an instinctual evolutionary instinct to procreate? I myself am puzzled by this...

It doesn't come from the instint to procreate - it is generally, as much sex is, a way of cementing social bonds between animals, keeping tension between social animals down, etc.

It doesn't come from the instint to procreate - it is generally, as much sex is, a way of cementing social bonds between animals, keeping tension between social animals down, etc.But if you're going on the assumption that we've evolved positive social and sensual responses to sex as a result of the evolutionary need to procreate, that doesn't solve our problem.

But if you're going on the assumption that we've evolved positive social and sensual responses to sex as a result of the evolutionary need to procreate, that doesn't solve our problem.

Sure it does.

Sex was pleasurable because we need to procreate.

Then, sex gained more uses because it was pleasurable.

Such as...?
a large amount of small animals, reptiles, and bugs(where the males tend to get die)

Is sex all you people can post about? I mean, really! Any abortion thread leads to the morality of sex, and there are about 1,000 abortion threads. Then there are sex threads like this one. Why are you still intent on arguing about it?

Cute scenarios, but most people that have sex AREN'T "trying to catch fish", "watch good movies" or "find ancient civilizations". All they want to do is to splash around in the water, make out in the theatre, and play in the sand.

My point is that you can't determine an action's "chief purpose" by the most common result from the action.

what happens when three people agree on something, as is the case here?

Bear in mind that this is Nationstates General.No, I'm NationStates General. ;)


Well, from an evolutionary perspective, sex clearly is a mechanism for reproduction, which is why we have evolved to enjoy it, need it, and depend on it so much.

But I agree, in today's society sex is not only or mostly employed for procreation, though that's, ultimately, its most important role--> the continuation of the species.Continuation of the species is important, but in today's world, overpopulation is a problem. So, having more children than are already being born now is not necessary to the continuation of the species (and, given the limitations of planetary resources, is actually detrimental to the species). That said, I'd like to pick up on the role of pleasure for a moment.

Sexuality is a very important part of the human mind. It's fulfillment thus becomes very important in forming a mentally stable and happy individual. A mentally stable and happy individual is less likely to be a disruption to society than an unstable or unhappy individual.

I don't imply that you have to have a good sex life to be a non-disruptive part of society; you can play sports, curl up with a good book, play a musical instrument, take nature hikes, or enjoy bread and circuses to be stable and happy. I'm just saying that having a good sex life .

How can we account for Gay sex as an instinctual evolutionary instinct to procreate? I myself am puzzled by this...It's possible that gay sex might evolve as a population control mechanism. In times of lean pickings, having lots of children is a liability. Those who are homosexual can satisfy their urges without bearing children and still be able to gather or hunt.

I'm making this up for the sake of speculation to answer your question; I don't really believe this evolved as a population control mechanism. I am reminded of overpopulation, though.

A fisherman goes out on the lake to catch some trout. More often than not, he catches nothing. Does that the main "chief reason" he goes fishing is to not catch fish?

A man goes to the theatre at least once a week to watch a movie. He tries to only see movies he thinks that he'll like. However, more often than not, he's left unsatisfied with the result. Does that mean the "chief reason" to go to the theatre is to watch bad movies?

An archaeologist spends vast amounts of time looking for the remains of a human civilization. Usually, all he finds is rocks and dirt. Does this mean that the main purpose of the archaeologist is to find rocks and dirt?




The problem is this:

If a fisherman fishes because he needs to catch fish, he will only contiune fishing so long as it has a positive yield in the long run.
If he fishes for pleasure, then it doesnt matter if he catches fish, he enjoys it all the same and catching fish is secondary to the pleasure of fishing.

A good test to apply is this:

If sex was not pleasurable, would people have more or less sex.

Since the answer is "enormously less," we can deduce that pleasure is the main function of sex.

The problem is this:

If a fisherman fishes because he needs to catch fish, he will only contiune fishing so long as it has a positive yield in the long run.
If he fishes for pleasure, then it doesnt matter if he catches fish, he enjoys it all the same and catching fish is secondary to the pleasure of fishing.

A good test to apply is this:

If sex was not pleasurable, would people have more or less sex.

Since the answer is "enormously less," we can deduce that pleasure is the main function of sex.

So you agree that the main purpose of the archaeologist is to find dirt?

You agree that the purpose of the man in my example going to the theatre is to watch bad movies?

You don't think the main purpose of the fisherman is to catch fish?

then how come it is displeasurable for so many species?

genetically random. do these species breed as much and if they do, do they give birth to a much larger offspring?

So you agree that the main purpose of the archaeologist is to find dirt?

You agree that the purpose of the man in my example going to the theatre is to watch bad movies?

You don't think the main purpose of the fisherman is to catch fish?

Yeah, reading is hard.

All they want to do is to splash around in the water
Then why did they bring a fishing pole when they want to swim?

make out in the theatre
What if they didn't bring a boy/girlfriend? In fact, the largest amount of movie-goers see a movie is because they want too watch a movie. Not just teenagers with their raging hormones.

and play in the sand.
I don't think a person with a degree in archaeology would spend lots of money just to "play in the sand". ;)

The main reason of "sex" is for reproduction.
Ever wondered why there is such a large population on the world? It's because everyone (well, not everyone) is having sex.
Although the main reason that people "do it" is for the orgasm, and less for having a baby, doesn't mean that the woman still will get pregnant. No?
And that's why we have condoms. That don't always work.

Yeah, reading is hard.

I just want my questions answered, instead of dodged. Thanks.

Sure it does.

Sex was pleasurable because we need to procreate.

Then, sex gained more uses because it was pleasurable.
Yeah, that makes sense, I guess. The truth is, we just don't have any indication that homosexuality is genetically determined or not, making this argument somewhat arbitrary. Its certainly not a "heritable" trait, but is a widespread enough phenomenon that it definately can't be attributed to socialization, or maybe it can, I dunno. Relieving social tension etc. is positive, but how did the alternative way of accomplishing it selected for if there's no way to pass it on?

a large amount of small animals, reptiles, and bugs(where the males tend to get die)Well, that doesn't prove anything. Clearly, their sexual urges are even stronger than their fear of being devoured by their mate. That's more than we can say for humans.

I just want my questions answered, instead of dodged. Thanks.

It was clearly answered.

Well, that doesn't prove anything. Clearly, their sexual urges are even stronger than their fear of being devoured by their mate. That's more than we can say for humans.You mean humans won't have sex with people who will eat them afterwards? ;)

Yeah, that makes sense, I guess. The truth is, we just don't have any indication that homosexuality is genetically determined or not, making this argument somewhat arbitrary. Its certainly not a "heritable" trait, but is a widespread enough phenomenon that it definately can't be attributed to socialization, or maybe it can, I dunno. Relieving social tension etc. is positive, but how did the alternative way of accomplishing it selected for if there's no way to pass it on?

We actually have quite a bit of indication that a tendency towards homosexuality is often genetically determined, and thus heritable.

You are assuming that the trait must be due to a single gene, which, in the case of something like sexuality (which exists along a spectrum), is ludicrous.

Is sex all you people can post about? I mean, really! Any abortion thread leads to the morality of sex, and there are about 1,000 abortion threads. Then there are sex threads like this one. Why are you still intent on arguing about it?

The forums are a place where people come to, among other things, argue.

In most threads, someone who appears not to understand this says "you are never going to solve this, why argue." Why do they bother to say this as they know it is pointless?

Argument serves many purposes. Perhaps some are persuaded. Perhaps some are forced to examine their views and change them. Perhaps others are able to hone their views through argument.

If you don't want to read a thread about the morality of sex or abortion, there is a simple answer: DON'T.

So you agree that the main purpose of the archaeologist is to find dirt?

You agree that the purpose of the man in my example going to the theatre is to watch bad movies?

You don't think the main purpose of the fisherman is to catch fish?


I'm sorry, could you please dumb down the answer for me. I never scored very well on the reading comprehension parts of those standardized tests!!!

Could you answer the three above questions with a "yes" or "no" so that my itty-bitty pea brain can comprehend.

Actually, forget that. Some weird cults like sleeping with lions, snakes, and other carnivorous animals. I'm not part of one, but there apparently being eaten is the high point of sex.

Well, that doesn't prove anything. Clearly, their sexual urges are even stronger than their fear of being devoured by their mate. That's more than we can say for humans.
i know, what im trying to ask is if other species can have sex for the sake of reproducing with no other positive aspects then why not humans? why is it that we require pleasure?

I'm sorry, could you please dumb down the answer for me. I never scored very well on the reading comprehension parts of those standardized tests!!!

Could you answer the three above questions with a "yes" or "no" so that my itty-bitty pea brain can comprehend.

Your 'three' questions were all the same. In answering one, all were answered. In other words apply the same logic to your ather two analogies.

Your 'three' questions were all the same. In answering one, all were answered. In other words apply the same logic to your ather two analogies.

Tell me, was the answer "yes" or "no"?
"yes" meaning, for example, that the main purpose of the archaeologist is to find dirt. "No" meaning that it isn't the archaeologist's main purpose to find dirt.

i know, what im trying to ask is if other species can have sex for the sake of reproducing with no other positive aspects then why not humans? why is it that we require pleasure?

That's like saying "why don't we have eyes like a fly?"

The answer is, we don't. Period.

There are many problems with the simplistic "sex is for procreation" and Darwinist views of sex.

Sex serves a variety of functions other than procreation in humans and in other species.

I'm no biologist or anthropologist, but I am familiar with a few examples of both.

Anyway, this is IMHO an interesting article (http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2004/mayjun/features/roughgarden.html) on the subject.

There are many more out there.

That's like saying "why don't we have eyes like a fly?"

The answer is, we don't. Period.
but we have eyes like many other mammals, almost no other mammals have recreational sex(the only ones i know of are dolphins), so if the pleasurable aspects evolved as a way to encourage reproduction why hasnt it evolved in many other species since it clearly works

So you agree that the main purpose of the archaeologist is to find dirt?

You agree that the purpose of the man in my example going to the theatre is to watch bad movies?

You don't think the main purpose of the fisherman is to catch fish?


When I got fishing i dont usually catch fish, but I enjoy doing it regardless.

if a person had to get food by fishing, and he was unable to catch enough fish to survive, he would stop fishing and find some other way to get food.

The archaologists and archeology students I know enjoy their work. "The chase is better than the catch" so to speak.

Your third example is too far-fetched to have any relevance, thought the same cost-benefit analysis applied to the fisherman can be applied to the moviegoer. If simply going out to see a movie is pleasurable for him, then seeing a good movie is 'icing on the cake' now and again so to speak.


Again, apply the test to sex:

If sex was not pleasurable, would people have more or less sex?

The problem is this:

If a fisherman fishes because he needs to catch fish, he will only contiune fishing so long as it has a positive yield in the long run.
If he fishes for pleasure, then it doesnt matter if he catches fish, he enjoys it all the same and catching fish is secondary to the pleasure of fishing.

A good test to apply is this:

If sex was not pleasurable, would people have more or less sex.

Since the answer is "enormously less," we can deduce that pleasure is the main function of sex.

If a man goes to the theatre to watch good movies, he will only contiune going to the theatre so long as it has a positive yield in the long run.
If he finds the social interaction pleasurable, then it doesnt matter if the movie is good or not, he enjoys it all the same and the movie is secondary to the theatre experience.

Get it yet boof? or do I need to so the archaeologist too?

The forums are a place where people come to, among other things, argue.

In most threads, someone who appears not to understand this says "you are never going to solve this, why argue." Why do they bother to say this as they know it is pointless?

Argument serves many purposes. Perhaps some are persuaded. Perhaps some are forced to examine their views and change them. Perhaps others are able to hone their views through argument.

If you don't want to read a thread about the morality of sex or abortion, there is a simple answer: DON'T.


Or to use the one quote I ever attribute to myself:

"A forum is a place where people come to disagree."

c'est vrai...

but we have eyes like many other mammals, almost no other mammals have recreational sex(the only ones i know of are dolphins), so if the pleasurable aspects evolved as a way to encourage reproduction why hasnt it evolved in many other species since it clearly works

You haven't done much research. Most mammals which have had their sexual behavior observed engage in sexual activity for pleasure at some point - often engaging in homosexual behavior. It occurs in many birds as well.

Just to name a few:
Humans, dolphins, Bonobos chimps, other apes, walruses, whales, dogs, cats, cattle, goats, etc, etc, etc.

You haven't done much research. Most mammals which have had their sexual behavior observed engage in sexual activity for pleasure at some point - often engaging in homosexual behavior. It occurs in many birds as well.

Just to name a few:
Humans, dolphins, Bonobos chimps, other apes, walruses, whales, dogs, cats, cattle, goats, etc, etc, etc.
homosexual sex is no good for production, my point is that the pleasurable aspects of sex are not for the purpose of promoting procreation

homosexual sex is no good for production, my point is that the pleasurable aspects of sex are not for the purpose of promoting procreation

Soley? Of course not, but that doesn't mean that they didn't first develop that way.

Under that same logic one would have to conclude that your voice is clearly and reasonably NOT chiefly for speaking - which would be incorrect.

I have no problem with people who sing, shout, scream and growl and make a good go at it myself on occasion, but I won't ever make a ridiculous argument contrary to the obvious.

Same goes for your other body parts. They are all adaptable to multiple uses (many of which are quite pleasurable) - but that does not negate their original intent or task.

Like my big toe - which was clearly intended to be for balance control, but is also quite adaptable at ass-kicking liberals. And it is quite pleasant to boot!

Soley? Of course not, but that doesn't mean that they didn't first develop that way.
perhaps, but that still doesnt answer the question of why it didnt evolve in other species,(mainly how often do animals mate if theyre not in heat)

i know, what im trying to ask is if other species can have sex for the sake of reproducing with no other positive aspects then why not humans? why is it that we require pleasure?We don't "require" it. If you ask what came first, the sex or the fun, it would be the former. Bacteria and single-cell organisms don't enjoy sex, they do because it helps them survive; same with us: we do it because it helps us survive, and pleasure helps us do it. Species that are neurologically evolved enough to experience sensation also have responses to sex.

We actually have quite a bit of indication that a tendency towards homosexuality is often genetically determined, and thus heritable.

You are assuming that the trait must be due to a single gene, which, in the case of something like sexuality (which exists along a spectrum), is ludicrous. I'm going to need a few more details here...do you know of any good studies about heritability and the regulation of the loci associated with sexuality?

perhaps, but that still doesnt answer the question of why it didnt evolve in other species,(mainly how often do animals mate if theyre not in heat)

Evolution is not directional. Different species = different mutations = different niche to fill.

Under that same logic one would have to conclude that your voice is clearly and reasonably NOT chiefly for speaking - which would be incorrect.

I have no problem with people who sing, shout, scream and growl and make a good go at it myself on occasion, but I won't ever make a ridiculous argument contrary to the obvious.

Same goes for your other body parts. They are all adaptable to multiple uses (many of which are quite pleasurable) - but that does not negate their original intent or task.

Like my big toe - which was clearly intended to be for balance control, but is also quite adaptable at ass-kicking liberals. And it is quite pleasant to boot!

Seems to me that the main function of the mouth is food/air intake.

Evolution is not directional. Different species = different mutations = different niche to fill.
name another mutation that is unique

I'm going to need a few more details here...do you know of any good studies about heritability and the regulation of the loci associated with sexuality?

A pubmed search reveals quite a few.

As for the loci associated with sexuality - we don't really know that yet. There is evidence of a genetic mechanism that ups fertility in women and increases the incidence of homosexuality in men, but its location is as yet unknown.

Of course, we don't really know what most of the genetic code does, so that really isn't surprising.

name another mutation that is unique

*Another*? You haven't brought up one.

*Another*? You haven't brought up one.
i dont know any, thats what im saying, all the evolved traits i know of are shared by at least a couple species

When I got fishing i dont usually catch fish, but I enjoy doing it regardless.

if a person had to get food by fishing, and he was unable to catch enough fish to survive, he would stop fishing and find some other way to get food.

The archaologists and archeology students I know enjoy their work. "The chase is better than the catch" so to speak.

Your third example is too far-fetched to have any relevance, thought the same cost-benefit analysis applied to the fisherman can be applied to the moviegoer. If simply going out to see a movie is pleasurable for him, then seeing a good movie is 'icing on the cake' now and again so to speak.


Again, apply the test to sex:

If sex was not pleasurable, would people have more or less sex?

So you're saying that the answer to my question is "no" the main purpose of fishing and archaeology is not "not catching fish" or "finding rocks and dirt", but, instead, the main purpose of these two things is "pleasure".

I'm going to disagree with you. I think that the purpose of an archaeologist is to do his job. I think this is concrete.

According to your definition, the archeaologist's "chief purpose" depends entirely on what he experiences most. Say the archaeologist was in a good mood and his work gave him a lot of pleasure. So for that day, the archaeologist's chief reason for doing what he does is to experience pleasure. However, the next day the archaeologist has a bad day (gets sunburned, finds nothing) and experiences a lot of frustration. Does that mean that his chief purpose for that day was to experience frustration? Or maybe one day, he digs up rocks and dirt more often than he experiences pleasure or frustration, does that mean for that day his purpose was to find rocks and dirt? How can you compare a human state of being with concrete objects like rock and dirt? Is that quantifiable? According to your definition, only the result that happens most often determines what the chief purpose of that action was.

What about an office worker that is stuck in a dead end job that he hates? Is the main purpose of his working in an office to experience frustration and hate?
How does a purpose have anything to do with the result of an action?

A pubmed search reveals quite a few.

As for the loci associated with sexuality - we don't really know that yet. There is evidence of a genetic mechanism that ups fertility in women and increases the incidence of homosexuality in men, but its location is as yet unknown.

Of course, we don't really know what most of the genetic code does, so that really isn't surprising.*Starts searching pubmed instead of studying for physics exam*

i dont know any, thats what im saying, all the evolved traits i know of are shared by at least a couple species

As are the traits we are speaking of.

What about an office worker that is stuck in a dead end job that he hates? Is the main purpose of his working in an office to experience frustration and hate?
How does a purpose have anything to do with the result of an action?
the main purpose of that is to bring in money with which to purchase essentials, if a fisherman doesnt catch anything, then hes not getting anything but the pleasure he obtains from fishing, same applies to sex where no one is going to get pregnant

So you're saying that the answer to my question is "no" the main purpose of fishing and archaeology is not "not catching fish" or "finding rocks and dirt", but, instead, the main purpose of these two things is "pleasure".

No, they are saying that if it is being done for pleasure, then the main purpose is pleasure.

Some people fish/dig in the sand for pleasure - catching fish/finding things is simply a side-effect.

Some people do it the other way around.

As are the traits we are speaking of.
sex between a male and a female when there is no chance of conception??

sex between a male and a female when there is no chance of conception??

Who said anything about "no chance of conception"?

Who said anything about "no chance of conception"?
humans have sex when the female is at a point in her menstrual cycle when she cannot become pregnant, is there another species that does this?

humans have sex when the female is at a point in her menstrual cycle when she cannot become pregnant, is there another species that does this?

There is no point in a woman's menstrual cycle when she cannot become pregnant. There are points in which it is less likely, but there is never a point at which she *cannot*.

Meanwhile, dogs will occasionally have sex when they are not in heat, or sexual contact at least. I believe Bonobos are on either a menstrual or estrous cycle -and they pretty much do it all the time.

ok then i guess my point is useless, unless i bring up contraceptives, which i wont

There is no point in a woman's menstrual cycle when she cannot become pregnant. There are points in which it is less likely, but there is never a point at which she *cannot*.Well, considering the life of a sperm is about two days, if a woman had sex immediately after her period, before ovulation (which only occurs at day 14 or so) then she is distinctly unlikely to concieve, even if you take the sperm's lifetime to a week.

Well, considering the life of a sperm is about two days, if a woman had sex immediately after her period, before ovulation (which only occurs at day 14 or so) then she is distinctly unlikely to concieve, even if you take the sperm's lifetime to a week.

Unlikely, yes, but not impossible. A woman can have sex *while* on her period and still conceive.

Recently it has been argued that the chief reason for sex is procreation.

This is simply not factually true.

You see, when two people have sex, a number of biological probabilities are taken into account.

one is the probability of the sex act resulting in reproduction

another is the sex act resulting in pleasure.

The chance of reproduction being the outcome of the sex act is relatively low.

The chance of pleasure being the outcome is essentially one hundred percent.

It is even naturally possible to have sex with no possibility of the woman becoming pregnant, this is done through timing of the menstrual cycles.


Reproduction can be seen as a secondary function of the sex act, as it is significantly less likely than the primary function of pleasure.

welcome to 1796

Sex for procreation should be banned everywhere, and not just on NationStates for about 8 years.

No, they are saying that if it is being done for pleasure, then the main purpose is pleasure.

Some people fish/dig in the sand for pleasure - catching fish/finding things is simply a side-effect.
.


This is reasonable. I agree with you here. A person's main reason for doing something is determined by that person. Of course, this position is much different that the original poster's original stance. Let me remind you.


Recently it has been argued that the chief reason for sex is procreation.

This is simply not factually true.

You see, when two people have sex, a number of biological probabilities are taken into account.

one is the probability of the sex act resulting in reproduction

another is the sex act resulting in pleasure.

The chance of reproduction being the outcome of the sex act is relatively low.

The chance of pleasure being the outcome is essentially one hundred percent.

It is even naturally possible to have sex with no possibility of the woman becoming pregnant, this is done through timing of the menstrual cycles.


Reproduction can be seen as a secondary function of the sex act, as it is significantly less likely than the primary function of pleasure.

Notice he doesn't argue that a person determines his purpose for doing something. He merely states that because pleasure is the most common result of sex, then that automatically makes pleasure the main purpose of sex. This was the point I was arguing against the whole time. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.

However, of course, if a couple has sex so they can get pregnant (notice the main purpose is decided by the couple), than the main purpose of their having sex is to get pregnant. If a couple has sex for pleasure (ie, they use contraception) than the purpose of that sexual act was pleasure only.

Now that we have this straightened out (I hope), the real question is not "what is the main purpose of sex", but "what should couples decide to make the main purpose of their sexual act be?"
Is it ok for couples to make pleasure the main purpose of their sex?

That's the question that really needs to be answered.

ok, sex is pleasureable, but the whole point is clearly and reasonably chiefly FOR procreation. The pleasure aspect probably exists as an incentive to have sex, and thus have little babies. but the pleasure part has gotten so pleasureable that now people (and animals according some on this thread) do it for fun and just for sake of doing it because it feels good. if you think about it you could even relate to back to darwins theory of natural selection. obviously, animals that enjoy having sex and thus reproducing will be much better off as a species for it. maybe we've evolved to enjoy sex, because all of out ancestors are the ones that enjoyed sex and had kids as a result who would end up enjoying sex.

take two species of animals, identical in every single aspect except for one: sex is pleasureable to species A, and not pleasureable (though not disagreeable) to species B.

Start off with a male and a female of each species. they both look the same and are both equally as intelligent. Give each test group a game of scrabble and 2 bottles of wine. soon, in species A, as is inevitable when scrabble, wine, and the ability to enjoy sex collide, they have sex. meanwhile species B is still playing scrabble, though their average word score has decreased because of the 2 bottles of wine. Supposedly species A has sex every night because they want to. the chances of them having a baby are much greater than species B. we'll assume species B is able to recognize the need to reproduce. they still aren't going to do it nearly as often. Several generations later A will greatly outnumber B and B will be over run and eventually dwindle to non-existance.

as for the ability to naturally prevent conception by the menstruel cycle, that doesn't really work as is evident by the amount of catholics we see everyday. to sum it up, though you might not consciously have sex in order to have a baby but rather consciously do it for fun, the fundamental and basic purpose of having reproductive organs is to reproduce, whatever fun you may also derive from them.

A fisherman goes out on the lake to catch some trout. More often than not, he catches nothing. Does that the main "chief reason" he goes fishing is to not catch fish?

A man goes to the theatre at least once a week to watch a movie. He tries to only see movies he thinks that he'll like. However, more often than not, he's left unsatisfied with the result. Does that mean the "chief reason" to go to the theatre is to watch bad movies?

An archaeologist spends vast amounts of time looking for the remains of a human civilization. Usually, all he finds is rocks and dirt. Does this mean that the main purpose of the archaeologist is to find rocks and dirt?
Explain Bonobos. Or hyenas.

Seems to me that the main function of the mouth is food/air intake.
I would not disagree with that. What is your point?

I would not disagree with that. What is your point?I suppose it's that some people actually use it to communicate… ;)

We don't "require" it. If you ask what came first, the sex or the fun, it would be the former. Bacteria and single-cell organisms don't enjoy sex, they do because it helps them survive; same with us: we do it because it helps us survive, and pleasure helps us do it. Species that are neurologically evolved enough to experience sensation also have responses to sex.

...This seems like rather faulty logic to me. I don't see how anyone could tell if bacteria and single-celled organisms are having/are capable of having fun or not.

Recently it has been argued that the chief reason for sex is procreation.

This is simply not factually true.

You see, when two people have sex, a number of biological probabilities are taken into account.

one is the probability of the sex act resulting in reproduction

another is the sex act resulting in pleasure.

The chance of reproduction being the outcome of the sex act is relatively low.

The chance of pleasure being the outcome is essentially one hundred percent. .

Wrong. Sex isn't always fun, and certainly not always for both parties.
I forget who said this:
'There's nothing so overrated as bad fuck, and nothing so underrated as a good shit'.



It is even naturally possible to have sex with no possibility of the woman becoming pregnant, this is done through timing of the menstrual cycles. .

The rhythm method is NOT one hundred percent reliable. Only Abstinence is.


Reproduction can be seen as a secondary function of the sex act, as it is significantly less likely than the primary function of pleasure.

That should be self evident. Sex ain't just for makin' babies.

...This seems like rather faulty logic to me. I don't see how anyone could tell if bacteria and single-celled organisms are having/are capable of having fun or not.

Not only are they not capable of having fun, bacteria and single-celled organisms DO NOT REPRODUCE SEXUALLY.

Recently it has been argued that the chief reason for sex is procreation.

This is simply not factually true.

You see, when two people have sex, a number of biological probabilities are taken into account.

one is the probability of the sex act resulting in reproduction

another is the sex act resulting in pleasure.

The chance of reproduction being the outcome of the sex act is relatively low.

The chance of pleasure being the outcome is essentially one hundred percent.

It is even naturally possible to have sex with no possibility of the woman becoming pregnant, this is done through timing of the menstrual cycles.


Reproduction can be seen as a secondary function of the sex act, as it is significantly less likely than the primary function of pleasure.

it's not supposed to plainly for happiness like that. it's that way because the animals that found that fun did that more often and had more offspring. evolution by natural selection right there.

From an evolutionary, species-survival standpoint, yes. But I doubt many of us are concerned with the Human race dieing out anytime soon. pregnancy is definately only a small fraction of the concequences, and reasons for sex.

Truly all we've done is try to beat the system.
Sex is for reproduction.
Hands down.
The need for it was placed in men. The want for it was, only in the recent century, placed in women.
Pleasure is just a form of evolution. Humans want something other than mindless babymaking. Nature knows this and resolves.

There would be no other reason for sex other than that because the roots of our pleasure come from structural needs and continuity.

humans have sex when the female is at a point in her menstrual cycle when she cannot become pregnant, is there another species that does this?


Yes.
In lots of species the males will get horny and want to do it regardless whether the timing is right. In any case, they will not necessarily know whether the timing is right. Most women don't know for sure whether they're ovulating or not at a given time (except when they're menstrating, when, contrary to popular belief there actually is still a slim chance of pregnancy).

Wrong. Sex isn't always fun, and certainly not always for both parties.
I forget who said this:
'There's nothing so overrated as bad fuck, and nothing so underrated as a good shit'.



The rhythm method is NOT one hundred percent reliable. Only Abstinence is.



That should be self evident. Sex ain't just for makin' babies.

I fail to see what the point to anything you said.
A simple, I agree would have sufficed.
But I agree with your 'bad fuck' point, however crudely it was worded.

Women don't always get the pleasurable end of the equation. For a long time, middle eastern countries didn't even believe women could have orgasms. -.-;

As with all things, humans have skewed nature's logic. Sex is just for making babies. We turned it into media, multimedia, 2-D, comedy, drama, money, everything it's not.
pleasure is just another.

Truly all we've done is try to beat the system.
Sex is for reproduction.
Hands down.
The need for it was placed in men. The want for it was, only in the recent century, placed in women..

Bollocks. Women have been having orgasms for thousands of years.

If that were not the case then there would have been no lesbians until 'the recent century', because why would lesbians get it on if not out of a desire for fun. It's certainly not for reproduction.

Bollocks. Women have been having orgasms for thousands of years.

If that were not the case then there would have been no lesbians until 'the recent century', because why would lesbians get it on if not out of a desire for fun. It's certainly not for reproduction.


notice the other comment I made
Middle Eastern countries thought this.
I think the reasoning behind their assumptions is obvious.

Truly all we've done is try to beat the system.
Sex is for reproduction.
Hands down.
The need for it was placed in men. The want for it was, only in the recent century, placed in women.
Pleasure is just a form of evolution. Humans want something other than mindless babymaking. Nature knows this and resolves.

There would be no other reason for sex other than that because the roots of our pleasure come from structural needs and continuity.What is this, a make-your-own-sexual-urges kit? Are you suggesting that pleasure from sex is a recent developement?
And yeah, the positive response was probably evolved to encourage sex...that's the general consencus in this thread.

I fail to see what the point to anything you said.
A simple, I agree would have sufficed..

No it wouldn't, as I disagreed with several points, and said so. The rhythm method is not 100% reliable, and sex is not 100% guaranteed to give pleasure to either party, let alone both.



As with all things, humans have skewed nature's logic. Sex is just for making babies. .

Obviously untrue. The word I take issue with is 'just'. Sure, sex was 'originally' to make babies, but it isn't just for that purpose now, whether you like it or not. If it was, then there would be no such thing as contraception, because we would have no need for it. Clearly people do want and use contraception because they are having sex for fun, not to make babies.

Then there's people who do it when they know they can't have children, because they're infertile, or are trying one of the many forms of sex other than male/female vaginal intercourse.

What is this, a make-your-own-sexual-urges kit? Are you suggesting that pleasure from sex is a recent developement?
And yeah, the positive response was probably evolved to encourage sex...that's the general consencus in this thread.

The whole idea of what I'm saying is that reproduction shouldn't be put behind the scenes just b/c we like orgasms.
I know everyone on the thread agrees, but I hate that anyone would say that pregnancy isn't a reason for sex.

it's as if all arguments only scrape the surface of evolution. the assumptions that bacteria don't reproduce sexually for instance.
Just because they're single celled doesn't mean they don't have sex. In fact, they do. they exchange genes through the pili which is considered sexual reproduction.

Sex is for reproduction. That is the sole REASON for it. Our excuses are completely different from the reason sex exists.

No it wouldn't, as I disagreed with several points, and said so. The rhythm method is not 100% reliable, and sex is not 100% guaranteed to give pleasure to either party, let alone both.




Obviously untrue. The word I take issue with is 'just'. Sure, sex was 'originally' to make babies, but it isn't just for that purpose now, whether you like it or not. If it was, then there would be no such thing as contraception, because we would have no need for it. Clearly people do want and use contraception because they are having sex for fun, not to make babies.

Then there's people who do it when they know they can't have children, because they're infertile, or are trying one of the many forms of sex other than male/female vaginal intercourse.

Our disagreement comes down to what you're talking about and what I'm talking about.

the reason for sex, nature's reason, is different from human reasons. pleasure is a biproduct. it's an excuse to have sex. the reason sex exists is solely for reproduction. Being infertile would never change a body's need for sex.

Don't think I'm saying pleasure doesn't exist or isn't used as a reason to have sex; I'm just arguing that calling pleasure a reason why sex exists is strange and untrue.

Sex isn't for anything, in much the same way that lizards, gravity or triangles aren't for anything. 'Nature' doesn't have an intention or a design. Mammalian sex sometimes leads to reproduction and is the means by which we reproduce, but to claim that sex for any other purpose is some sort of cosmic vandalism is to entirely misunderstand the nature of the universe.

Nature doesn't care. 'Unnatural' is not an insult, it's absolutely and irrevocably irrelevant. Our existance is how it is; do with it as you will. The universe is entirely uninterested.

The whole idea of what I'm saying is that reproduction shouldn't be put behind the scenes just b/c we like orgasms.
I know everyone on the thread agrees, but I hate that anyone would say that pregnancy isn't a reason for sex.

it's as if all arguments only scrape the surface of evolution. your assumptions that bacteria don't reproduce sexually for instance.
Just because they're single celled doesn't mean they don't have sex. In fact, they do. they exchange genes through the pili which is considered sexual reproduction.

Sex is for reproduction. That is the sole REASON for it. Our excuses are completely different from the reason sex exists. You misread, I certainly didn't claim that bacteria don't have sex, on the contrary:
Bacteria and single-cell organisms don't enjoy sex, they do because it helps them survive; same with us: we do it because it helps us survive, and pleasure helps us do it. Species that are neurologically evolved enough to experience sensation also have responses to sex.I merely claimed that they do it solely for evolutionary purposes, and not for enjoyment just like you emphasize. I know all about horizontal gene transfer and such.

And I also agree that the chief function of sex is for procreation, as I stated in my first posts...We're just socialized enough to develope other important reasons for it.

You misread, I certainly didn't claim that bacteria don't have sex, on the contrary:
I merely claimed that they do it solely for evolutionary purposes, and not for enjoyment just like you emphasize. I know all about horizontal gene transfer and such.

And I also agree that the chief function of sex is for procreation, as I stated in my first posts...We're just socialized enough to develope other important reasons for it.

I noticed my mistake after I posted.
I also went back and fixed it. I didn't mean to put your.
the argument was there as an example of singlemindedness

The whole idea of what I'm saying is that reproduction shouldn't be put behind the scenes just b/c we like orgasms.
I know everyone on the thread agrees, but I hate that anyone would say that pregnancy isn't a reason for sex...

I certainly never said pregnancy wasn't *a* reason for sex, I just took issue with your insistance that it was the *only* reason.


it's as if all arguments only scrape the surface of evolution. your assumptions that bacteria don't reproduce sexually for instance

Just because they're single celled doesn't mean they don't have sex. In fact, they do. they exchange genes through the pili which is considered sexual reproduction..

Ok. It was my understanding that bacteria reproduced by asexual reproduction. I accept that I may be wrong about this. I will have to read up on it.


Sex is for reproduction. That is the sole REASON for it. Our excuses are completely different from the reason sex exists.

That's an interesting point. Unfortunately the word 'excuse' implies that sex is something bad which needs to be excused, which I do not think is the case.

The whole idea of what I'm saying is that reproduction shouldn't be put behind the scenes just b/c we like orgasms.
I know everyone on the thread agrees, but I hate that anyone would say that pregnancy isn't a reason for sex.

it's as if all arguments only scrape the surface of evolution. the assumptions that bacteria don't reproduce sexually for instance.
Just because they're single celled doesn't mean they don't have sex. In fact, they do. they exchange genes through the pili which is considered sexual reproduction.

Sex is for reproduction. That is the sole REASON for it. Our excuses are completely different from the reason sex exists.

Nature uses sex for reproduction, society sees reproduction as a, for the most part, harmful repercussion of sex.

Ironically, the pleasure derived from sex, which was obtained through evolution and nature in order to propogate, ultimately leaded to society exploiting the sex process, and with the spread of fatal STD's, will ultimately kill us all.

Sex isn't for anything, in much the same way that lizards, gravity or triangles aren't for anything. 'Nature' doesn't have an intention or a design. Mammalian sex sometimes leads to reproduction and is the means by which we reproduce, but to claim that sex for any other purpose is some sort of cosmic vandalism is to entirely misunderstand the nature of the universe.

Nature doesn't care. 'Unnatural' is not an insult, it's absolutely and irrevocably irrelevant. Our existance is how it is; do with it as you will. The universe is entirely uninterested.

It's almost as if you assume to add nihilism into the debate. That or you think any of us are religious.
I for one can say that I'm a Satanist of sorts, I don't worship anyone, I don't think there is a purpose in the universe
But I do believe in evolution.
We, as organisms take it upon ourselves to change with the times. Unnatural isn't an insult anymore than nonconformist is. Or...maybe nonconformist IS an insult.
But, it remains the same, even with an existentialist view of the world, there will be reason.
Nihilistic views solve nothing. It's a cop out.
It's almost a generic way of answering anything.

"Sex is for this reason"

"i don't care."

Nature uses sex for reproduction, society sees reproduction as a, for the most part, harmful repercussion of sex.

Ironically, the pleasure derived from sex, which was obtained through evolution and nature in order to propogate, ultimately leaded to society exploiting the sex process, and with the spread of fatal STD's, will ultimately kill us all.

Perfect. That's exactly what I'm saying.

I've always said that we'll destroy ourselves through the Christian sins.

Lust is just another way. Greed will lead to chronic obesity and wipe out another part of the population. Envy will lead to...nuclear war. Yes. Nuclear war. I pulled it out of my ass but there it is.
Almost all the sins Christianity has defined will eventually lead to our demise.
I guess they're right about a few things even if it's not the basis of their existence.

That's an interesting point. Unfortunately the word 'excuse' implies that sex is something bad which needs to be excused, which I do not think is the case.

It doesn't imply that anything of the sort.
If nature's sole reason for sex was reproduction, and we screw for dimes, orgasms, or a bag of chips, it's all an excuse. Any sex without intention of pregnancy is an excuse. The only thing bad about sex today is that it tricks nature with contraception and 'rhythm'

not that I condemn this. I even advocate it.

Nature uses sex for reproduction, society sees reproduction as a, for the most part, harmful repercussion of sex.

Ironically, the pleasure derived from sex, which was obtained through evolution and nature in order to propogate, ultimately leaded to society exploiting the sex process, and with the spread of fatal STD's, will ultimately kill us all.

I really doubt that.
Medical science has advanced to the stage that we can cure, or at least treat most STDs and futher cures are likely to follow.

Also, people can be (and are) educated about safe sex.

I think we'll kill ourselves through environmental pollution first.

Such as...?



Cats hate to fuck. Dogs too. Sometimes dogs get stuck together when they have sex. It ends up being pretty funny.

I really doubt that.
Medical science has advanced to the stage that we can cure, or at least treat most STDs and futher cures are likely to follow.

Also, people can be (and are) educated about safe sex.

I think we'll kill ourselves through environmental pollution first.

It doesn't matter if the impacts of pollution come first, STDs have the potential to wipe out any number of people, maybe more than they already have. Education isn't everywhere. Africa is the one with AIDs and all they know is that AIDs sucks.

You take an optimistic view on STDs, but remember that 90% of these diseases didn't even exist 15 years ago, which could prove that more are likely to follow

AND

only about 3 of them even affect men. As usual, women get the bad end of the equation. Diseases and viruses mutate and STDs are bound to as well.

Cats hate to fuck. Dogs too. Sometimes dogs get stuck together when they have sex. It ends up being pretty funny.

You have to take a picture of that
and send it to me
so I can finally have a purpose in life.

I really doubt that.
Medical science has advanced to the stage that we can cure, or at least treat most STDs and futher cures are likely to follow.

Also, people can be (and are) educated about safe sex.

I think we'll kill ourselves through environmental pollution first.

The second point was facetious, although i know it's hard to tell. But then again, you look in Africa, and you could see where the statement could hold some truth.

Medical science indeed has advanced, but it will be a LOOONG time before we are able to cure the more dangerous STD's (AIDS, most importantly), mostly because they are retro-viruses, and as such there is no permanent cure.

People in general are stupid. <<<That's just a fact. safe sex is not something you can just be educated on, it's something you have to live by. The only 100% way to not catch STD's is abstinence... a condom only protects you what.. 80% of the time if you are with someone who has an STD? I believe the last numbers i heard were 1 in 4 have herpes, and ultimately a STRONG percentage has at least one STD (somewhere near half of our population). And that number can only rise, since those individuals aren't just gonna die immediately; they're gonna have sex and infect others.

But yes, we aren't going to go extinct via STD's... although it's still a MAJOR problem brought upon by society's accentuation on sex as a pasttime.

it's as if all arguments only scrape the surface of evolution. the assumptions that bacteria don't reproduce sexually for instance.
Just because they're single celled doesn't mean they don't have sex. In fact, they do. they exchange genes through the pili which is considered sexual reproduction.

For the record, gene exchange is not considered reproduction at all, since there is no offspring formed directly from it.

For the record, gene exchange is not considered reproduction at all, since there is no offspring formed directly from it.

hey you can look at the Bio text book yourself. The exchange was considered part of the sexual reproduction and the main difference between asexual reproduction due to the fact that no new genes are introduced when bacteria reproduce without 'help.'

For the record, gene exchange is not considered reproduction at all, since there is no offspring formed directly from it.It's considered a para-sexual proccess: conjugation, selfish DNA, transformation, and transduction all result in genetically altered daughter cells.

Medical science indeed has advanced, but it will be a LOOONG time before we are able to cure the more dangerous STD's (AIDS, most importantly), mostly because they are retro-viruses, and as such there is no permanent cure.

*Sigh* The fact that HIV is a retrovirus does not preclude a "permanent cure" in a particular person. All it would take in a particular person is stopping the multiplication of the virus and/or getting rid of all infected cells. The problem is that we haven't yet found a conserved protein we can effectively make a vaccine with. In order to cure/vaccinate someone, it would have to be to a conserved protein (and there are several). Problem is, the HIV virus protects its conserved proteins behind less conserved proteins right up until it attaches to the cell. As such, we can't really figure out a vaccine yet that will cover all "strains" as it were.

It's considered a para-sexual proccess: conjugation, selfish DNA, transformation, and transduction all result in genetically altered daughter cells.

...which is not the same thing as sexual reproduction.

hey you can look at the Bio text book yourself. The exchange was considered part of the sexual reproduction and the main difference between asexual reproduction due to the fact that no new genes are introduced when bacteria reproduce without 'help.'

Which out of my 10 bio textbooks do you think I will find this in?

Asexual reproduction is the splitting of one cell to make two daughter cells. Even after transduction, this still occurs.

*Sigh* The fact that HIV is a retrovirus does not preclude a "permanent cure" in a particular person. All it would take in a particular person is stopping the multiplication of the virus and/or getting rid of all infected cells. The problem is that we haven't yet found a conserved protein we can effectively make a vaccine with. In order to cure/vaccinate someone, it would have to be to a conserved protein (and there are several). Problem is, the HIV virus protects its conserved proteins behind less conserved proteins right up until it attaches to the cell. As such, we can't really figure out a vaccine yet that will cover all "strains" as it were.

What's with the sigh?
Are we boring you with our inferior knowledge?

What's with the sigh?
Are we boring you with our inferior knowledge?

No, I've just seen quite a bit of pseudo-biology on the forums tonight.

*Sigh* The fact that HIV is a retrovirus does not preclude a "permanent cure" in a particular person. All it would take in a particular person is stopping the multiplication of the virus and/or getting rid of all infected cells. The problem is that we haven't yet found a conserved protein we can effectively make a vaccine with. In order to cure/vaccinate someone, it would have to be to a conserved protein (and there are several). Problem is, the HIV virus protects its conserved proteins behind less conserved proteins right up until it attaches to the cell. As such, we can't really figure out a vaccine yet that will cover all "strains" as it were.

Just because i'm interested, please define a "conserved protein."

Which out of my 10 bio textbooks do you think I will find this in?

Asexual reproduction is the splitting of one cell to make two daughter cells. Even after transduction, this still occurs.

Of all the things to attack in this discussion you attack the miswording of bacteria reproduction.
It's Glencoe by the way,
still, that's a low point for you. Correct me on my 9th grade biology knowledge, but that doesn't change my stance on sex.

Regardless of the way I employ it.

No, I've just seen quite a bit of pseudo-biology on the forums tonight.


I should hope that nothing i've said is taken to be biology, i mean it purely in the context of the world of fantasy thought up by Neo Cannan where morality can be derived from the 'purposes' of things.

Ooohh, good one! it's definately not evolutionarily advantageous, but has certainly been observed in animals, and definately been present throughout Human history. That's got me wondering...

Anyone have a theory?
I think that that proves that the Human race is trying to evolve. It is the male trying to prove that he doesnt need the female to reproduce.

Just because i'm interested, please define a "conserved protein."

RNA viruses mutate quite a bit due to the fact that their replication mechanisms are "leaky". There are proteins which cannot change much without making the virus unable to infect cells, replicate, etc. These end up being conserved (not changed) while everything else changes around them.

It happens in evolutioinary schemes as well. There are certain conserved proteins that are nearly the same throughout many related organisms, even though other proteins have changed quite a bit. This is because they are integral to the survival of the organism.

I don't exactly know who argued that sex was meant solely for reproduction with you. Maybe you just thought it was a good way to start your sentence, because most religious groups tend towards the belief that it is also the ultimate expression of love. THe only person you could have possibly heard that from was some biological fanatic. I suppose, however, that sex would have to be solely for reproduction, on an earth without a God. In purely biological terms, it is only for reproduction, as the end pursuit cannot be pleasure, considering the fact that there is no way for nature to have known we would have the ability to feel pleasure. I think, however, that the majority of people would readily admit that during sex, there is pleasure, and that most people engage in sex to obtain that pleasure.
Perhaps you are right, but only in a philosophical sense. Since, during sex you attain pleasure, many engage in sex to attain pleasure. (which I said like a second ago) But the biological purpose of sex is reproduction; and if there is pleasure, it is because of an accidental mutation that allowed organisms to feel stuff.
A much more productive debate would be to debate whether people feel a need to have sex from biological urges, or is it a media that is subconsiously infiltrating the mind and causing the desire.

Of all the things to attack in this discussion you attack the miswording of bacteria reproduction.
It's Glencoe by the way,
still, that's a low point for you. Correct me on my 9th grade biology knowledge, but that doesn't change my stance on sex.

Regardless of the way I employ it.

If you took that as an attack, you apparently have some sort of martyr complex.

I correct anyone on their biology when it is incorrect. That was not to imply that you should "change your stance on sex." I was simply pointing out a miswording in case someone else decided to base their view on it.

Even one as slow as you could tell the difference between a mouth and a voice... I thought.

...I'm sorry, but this is all just stupid.

1) Evolution is based on what happens to WORK. There is no 'purpose' behind anything. This is why we have VESTIGAL organs and biological 'junk'. Sometimes, stuff just pops up, and accidentally manages to stay in a species, for better or worse. I don't think that nature's a big fan of multiple personalty disorder, but hey, it's still there.

2) We don't have proof of where 'pleasure' first showed up. So we honestly don't know what the hell it was about originally.

3) There's no reason to assume that whatever it was first used for is the 'right use'.

Wow. People have finally figured that out.

Sex clearly gives us pleasure so we have a need to procreate. Since we are at the top of the food chain and have high intelligence etc. etc., many people wouldn't have sex. We are a species where sex is usually a mutually agreed act. Look at cats and dogs. A female cat or dog does not go up to a male and pursue intercourse. Instead it is an act pursued by the male and often there is opposition from the female often like rape in the human race.

Pleasure is not a mystery, people. Maybe I missed it but from my understanding there's nothing in biology to negate that sex does not cause pleasure or that pleasure is not a biological mechanism. People are who they are because of biology. You and I can experience pleasure because of our biology. So can dolphins. Cats and dogs no. Possibly for the male but that just proves that it is a mechanism to cause an organism to have intercourse.

Pleasure is not subjective. Pleasure was a word that was put to a feeling/sensation. Often a feeling and sensation one feels when having sex, if you will? A lot of things experience sensation. My cat does when I scratch his chin and people do from having sex. Sensation is caused by nerves. For instance, I have neuropathy so often I cannot feel my legs. If you touched them it is extremely likely that I would not be able to tell. There's no mystery behind it. You and I can experience pleasure from sex because have a lot of nerves in our crotches.

I think that that proves that the Human race is trying to evolve. It is the male trying to prove that he doesnt need the female to reproduce.

That doesn't make sense. Sure a male doesn't need a female to have sex (and vice versa) but he *does* need one to reproduce.

...which is not the same thing as sexual reproduction.

Oh, good, it is the way I remembered it then.

It doesn't imply that anything of the sort.
If nature's sole reason for sex was reproduction, and we screw for dimes, orgasms, or a bag of chips, it's all an excuse. Any sex without intention of pregnancy is an excuse. The only thing bad about sex today is that it tricks nature with contraception and 'rhythm'

not that I condemn this. I even advocate it.

That may not have been how you meant it but word 'excuse' conjures up the concept of an apology for a wrong act. Something that needs to be excused.

Dictionary.com:

To explain (a fault or an offense) in the hope of being forgiven or understood: He arrived late and excused his tardiness in a flimsy manner.
To apologize for (oneself) for an act that could cause offense: She excused herself for being late.

To grant pardon to; forgive: We quickly excused the latecomer.
To make allowance for; overlook: Readers must excuse the author's youth and inexperience. See Synonyms at forgive.
To serve as justification for: Brilliance does not excuse bad manners.
To free, as from an obligation or duty; exempt: In my state, physicians and lawyers are excused from jury duty.
To give permission to leave; release: The child ate quickly and asked to be excused.

Recently it has been argued that the chief reason for sex is procreation.

This is simply not factually true.

You see, when two people have sex, a number of biological probabilities are taken into account.

one is the probability of the sex act resulting in reproduction

another is the sex act resulting in pleasure.

The chance of reproduction being the outcome of the sex act is relatively low.

The chance of pleasure being the outcome is essentially one hundred percent.

It is even naturally possible to have sex with no possibility of the woman becoming pregnant, this is done through timing of the menstrual cycles.


Reproduction can be seen as a secondary function of the sex act, as it is significantly less likely than the primary function of pleasure.

Probability has nothing to do with it.

The pleasure aspect is designed to make us want to have sex. It does not always result in the creation of a life but the reason it is pleasurable is to make us want to do it. If it was dull then people wouldn't want to do it and thus the species would eventually die out.

You see, when two people agree on something, wonderful things can happen. That wonderful thing is the cookie.
Aw, threads like this remind me of just how much I love sex and cookies. Shame about the chaffing from the crumbs. :p

Not cheifly for procreation. Neither chiefly for pleasure Either.

Imo you can't take both out. (Though we nowadays do with condoms and stuff). Hence, sex last time was such a taboo only to be enjoyed for married couples.

In the big picture, the purpose of sex is procreation.

On an individual basis, the purpose of sex is whatever you are using it for at the time. It can be used for procreation, manipulation, pleasure, or whatever other purpose fits.

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with the majority. I mean honestly, if sex wasn't primarily about procreation, wouldn't guys have more control over their baby batter? (And I'm NOT talking about premature ejaculation.) People are generally ignorant to the concept of instinct. They believe that just because we can override instinct, we really don't have any. I think that sex IS about procreation and the fun and pleasure is just an insurance that maybe it happens once in a while.

The pleasure aspect is designed to make us want to have sex.

I'll have to disagree with that - unless you believe in God, there is no "designer" and no "design."

From an evolutionary perspective: The reason animals and many people have sex is because it feels good. The reason that this pleasant feeling has evolved is because the animals that feel more pleasure from sex are more likely to have sex and thus more likely to have offspring.

Nowhere in there is there anything about "designing" sex for a "purpose."

Probability has nothing to do with it.

The pleasure aspect is designed to make us want to have sex. It does not always result in the creation of a life but the reason it is pleasurable is to make us want to do it. If it was dull then people wouldn't want to do it and thus the species would eventually die out.


On the contrary, probability has everything to do with it.

You'll see that I made no recourse to religious ideas or anything of that nature.

The most probable outcome of an bodily activity is its function. Sex results almost 100% of the time in great pleasure and not even remotely so often in reproduction. Therefore, the function of sex is pleasure for individuals. Reproduction is a secondary outcome and not the main or most likely outcome.

Just something more to consider:

Humans have numerous errogenous zones. (I assure you, breast-groping does not cause pregnancy.)

Humans do not have normally-detectable cycles. (Whereas primates usually do)

Also: Primates get off. Often while watching other primates mate.

I have to disagree with the initial post. Sex is pleasurable because the members of a species who find sex to be pleasurable will reproduce more than those who don't.

In the end, just about everything is based on reproduction.

But sex is still a personal thing and should not be interfered with in any way.

Sex, however, like grooming, has several functions. Yes, it promotes reproduction (very effectively), but it also has social bonding abilities, and shifts hormones in various ways (similarly, sadly, primates have been known to rape each other out of frustration after losing rank and the like).

More affectionate groups tend to survive better, because they support each other better. So even if a chimp is just fondling for fun, it's increasing the overall reproduction of the species, because members are happy and care for each other.

I believe that sex is for reproduction at first and it was intended for reporduction when (insert religous beliefs) created all this. Supreme force made sex pleasureable because otherwise no one would do it. Then people realized they could have sex for pleasure all they want, and the race would continue because a side-effect of the pleasure is a baby sometimes.

Yet I don't believe the outcome of something makes it the main purpose of it. A lot of things we don't like but we do it because we need to. Is getting a shot pleasureable? Not to many. Then why the hell would we ever do sometihng not pleasureable?

We have sex because it is pleasureable, but the purpose of sex is to reproduce. Our intent and goal is to get pleasure.