# Why do we do it?



## Makalakumu (Mar 17, 2005)

Sex that is...

1.  Is it done solely for procreation?

2.  Are there other factors that come into play?

This question raises some pretty interesting moral issues.  

It is also interesting to note that of the people who support the first position, there are a number of very strange bedfellows.  Emminent evolutionary biology professors Richard Dawkins and EO Wilson apparently hold the same belief as the fundamentalist groups that oppose evolution.

One of the interesting moral issues that comes into play is homosexuality.  If sex is something done solely for procreation, then homosexuallity could rightly be viewed as something unnatural.  If there are other factors though...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## ginshun (Mar 17, 2005)

I know that I sure don't plan on having any more kids, and I don't plan to stop haveing sex any time soon, so that would pretty much get rid of the only for procreation thing.

 Honestly, I can't believe that there is anybody out there that thinks people should have sex for procreation only. Anybody who says that is lieing to themselves and everybody else.

 Maybe some religous fanatics, but they are crazy anyway, so they don't reallyt count.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 17, 2005)

Okay, here is the position statement for the "sex for procreation" as I know it.  

One may have lots of sex and one may not get pregnant all of the time, but this only reflects the fact that getting pregnant for humans is difficult.  For a pregnancy to actually occur it may take hundreds of attempts...and then even if conception occurs, the chance for implantation is relatively small.  The fact that sex feels good reinforces this above position because it provides incentive for humans to have sex.  It is therefore natural to expect that humans have far more acts of intercourse then pregnacies.  Further, humans have developed such a strong desire to have sex that it is also natural for humans to have sex for procreation that it is also natural for humans to have sex when they cannot have or do not want to have any more children.  

Basically, nature over rides our free will.

This above position, by the way is used by many anti-abortion groups to justify their belief that life is precious and sex is used for procreation only.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## ginshun (Mar 17, 2005)

I don't buy it.  I myself, and many many others take specific measures to make sure that conception does not take place when I have sex.   Obviously I am not having sex for the sake of procreation.  Sure, anyone can argue that it is still the overwelming natural urge to procreate that is causeing us to want to have sex even if procreation is not the goal in my mind.  They are basically saying that this urge is taking place on a subconsious level I guess, but then I think the argument is getting a little silly.  Its like, you may not know something, and we can't prove it, but that is still the way it is. 

  BS.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 17, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> I don't buy it.  I myself, and many many others take specific measures to make sure that conception does not take place when I have sex.   Obviously I am not having sex for the sake of procreation.  Sure, anyone can argue that it is still the overwelming natural urge to procreate that is causeing us to want to have sex even if procreation is not the goal in my mind.  They are basically saying that this urge is taking place on a subconsious level I guess, but then I think the argument is getting a little silly.  Its like, you may not know something, and we can't prove it, but that is still the way it is.
> 
> BS.



The biologists above simply note that ALL other animals have sex for procreation only.  Why are humans different?  They would posit that it is rediculous to claim that we are any different.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 17, 2005)

It seems to me that *if* human sexual intercourse _was intended by design_ only to enable us to procreate, impregnation would be statistically more likely, and there would be no need for it to feel good.  From this I derive that because intercourse feels good, and because impregnation is not a statistical certainty, there are other reasons for sex beyond simple procreation.  However, I am no sexologist. :idunno:


----------



## ginshun (Mar 17, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The biologists above simply note that ALL other animals have sex for procreation only. Why are humans different? They would posit that it is rediculous to claim that we are any different.


 I thought that there were apes that did too.  Specifically the Bonobo.  I am sure that I have heard that dolphins have sex for pleasure as well, although I don't know if that one is true.

 Regardless, even if there were no other animals that did, I would think that there are many other things that humans do that no other animals do too.


----------



## Deuce (Mar 17, 2005)

IMO it's not just a procreation thing. It brings a sense of intimacy and closeness between two people who love each other. I think if it's sole purpose was procreation, then we would instictively go about it in a different manner. Maybe it would only feel good for the female if conception was highly possible. As ginshun already stated, dolphins have sex for the pleasure. I've been humped by a few dogs in my day also, and I imagine that they're are smart enough to realize that my leg would not give birth....gee, maybe I should get a pregnancy test just to be safe...LOL.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 17, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> It seems to me that *if* human sexual intercourse _was intended by design_ only to enable us to procreate, impregnation would be statistically more likely, and there would be no need for it to feel good.  From this I derive that because intercourse feels good, and because impregnation is not a statistical certainty, there are other reasons for sex beyond simple procreation.  However, I am no sexologist. :idunno:



I've read Richard Dawkins' book, in it he addresses this...

Evolution is not a perfect process.  It naturally produces systems with flaws.  Getting pregnant in humans is horrendously difficult because of the flaws in the system.  Therefore the tendancy towards lots of sex and pleasure HAD to evolve in order to pass on our genetic information.


----------



## Deuce (Mar 17, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I've read Richard Dawkins' book, in it he addresses this...
> 
> Evolution is not a perfect process. It naturally produces systems with flaws. Getting pregnant in humans is horrendously difficult because of the flaws in the system. Therefore the tendancy towards lots of sex and pleasure HAD to evolve in order to pass on our genetic information.


In this case couldn't fertility or impregnation have evolved instead of increased pleasure to increase pregnancy? It seems that this would be a more efficient evolution process that would save the time and energy put into impregnation. Not that I'm complaining.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 17, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I've read Richard Dawkins' book, in it he addresses this...
> 
> Evolution is not a perfect process. It naturally produces systems with flaws. Getting pregnant in humans is horrendously difficult because of the flaws in the system. Therefore the tendancy towards lots of sex and pleasure HAD to evolve in order to pass on our genetic information.


I am concerned when I hear science types talk about an observable process like evolution as an "it" and discusses 'it' as if it were a conscious entity. I am not nailing you individually UpN, but your comment reminded me of this pattern by many who discuss evolution (in any of it's theoretical constructions).

Evolution does not plan anything whether perfection, efficiency, flaw...because it isn't an entity. It is a term/system of discussion designed to codify the natural process of how things change over time so that people can understand it. It is a human construct designed to allow for easy communication about a topic.

As far as sex for procreation/other.... if sex was strictly a procreative function, then humans would follow the same 'heat' cycles that other mammals do such as deer. Yes, women have periods of higher or lower sexual drive depending on the point in the mentral cycle, but that is not the same as the 'heat/rut' season that other mammals go through to take advantage of the seasonal weather patterns to create the optimal bearing/birth/rearing timing given a particular environment.

We are 'higher thinkers' than other mammals and tend to engage in sex for many reasons: comfort, control/domination, lonliness, boredom, stress, pleasure, love, sadness, anger, demonstrative alliance....you name it, people have had sex because of it. I would say that the side benefit of those multitudes of reasons for sex to occur improves the likelihood that humans, who don't have mating seasons, will be more likely to have sex more often and therefore create more offspring.

I don't remember the type, but one naturalist/biologist spent many years observing a certian type of Chimp/monkey where troops used the act of sexual intercourse as a way to defuse internal power struggles, create alliances, reduce anger/apologize to each other while the males and females were 'out of heat.' During the mating seasons, the females were biologically capable of procreative results, but other than that they were not. These findings were all based on observable behavior. The funny thing (peculiar) is that compared to other types of chimps/monkeys, this type had far less violence within or between the different troops. 

That said, of course the primary biological function of sex is procreation, but to say that the 'reason' that sex 'exists' is because 'evolution' wanted us to have more babies and not for other reasons is deification.

I would say that those who were/are more sexual by nature survive to create offspring who will carry on that trait and have more sex and so on down the line. Therefore, in times of genocide/disaster, this will improve our chances as a race of continuation.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 17, 2005)

I keep hearing on here how hard it is to get pregnant.

 I must be one luck dude.


----------



## rutherford (Mar 17, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> One of the interesting moral issues that comes into play is homosexuality.  If sex is something done solely for procreation, then homosexuallity could rightly be viewed as something unnatural.  If there are other factors though...
> 
> upnorthkyosa



To bring this point together with the ones concerning behavior observed in animals, I offer this link:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

And this one as an added bonus:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/queercreatures/


----------



## Ray (Mar 17, 2005)

rutherford said:
			
		

> To bring this point together with the ones concerning behavior observed in animals, I offer this link:
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
> 
> ...


The behavior of animals, in and of itself, is not sufficient cause to draw conclusions about human behavior.

After all, Chimps (as smart as they are) will not be house-broken; my well-fed dog and other dogs that I have observed eat *****.  Neither changing my snacking habits or where I put my feces should be decided only upon what animals do.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Mar 17, 2005)

> The biologists above simply note that ALL other animals have sex for procreation only. Why are humans different? They would posit that it is rediculous to claim that we are any different.


How does anyone know that animals have sex for procreation only. I'm fairly sure that animals, and humans, have sex because it feels good. That's the drive. Humans have sex before they're old enough to procreate, and after they're too old to procreate. Humans use birth control. Some humans and animals are homosexual. Humans have sex for love and intimacy.  Dogs will **** your leg if they have a chance. Even Paramecia conjugate, and they're probably not "thinking" about procreating.

Ascribing a "purpose" to sex is teleological, as if birds grew wings for the purpose of flying. No, the reason we're all around now is because when sex feels good, animals do it a lot, and therefore procreate a lot, producing a lot more animals with really great feeling sex.

Kinda makes you wish you were a little MORE evolved, huh?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 17, 2005)

I think It goes deeper than biology for humans. As we were blessed or cursed with a conciosness, so we build our cultures around sex, be they a sexualy positive or negative. Most attributed a sex to their god or gods, even when monotheism swept the civilized world the Favored Goddess became masculinized or the God retained his sex, even though he was not born or requiring of a mate to pro-create that god was considered a potent male (Islam solved the pro-creation problem by stating that Allah doesn't create he already had it in the works... anyways) My point is that semanticly we are so programmed to respond to sexual imagry and expectation that our sexual choices are manifestations of how we see ourselves in the world.
Sean


----------



## Tgace (Mar 17, 2005)

The way we think of sex with our brains isnt necessarily the same reason we have sex organs on our bodies. "We" do it for a variety of reasons...biologically we do it for one.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 17, 2005)

Penguins have prostitutes.

Think I am lying?  Look it up.  

Penguins mate for life, but male penguins often engage in sexual behavior with females outside their partnership in exchange for nesting stones.

So Sex for Money... theres a motivation for you, that does not play into the idea of procreation.  And Masturbation is a sexual activity, and that certainly has nothing to do with procreation either... yet I hear that people do it.


----------



## Deuce (Mar 17, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Penguins have prostitutes.
> 
> Think I am lying? Look it up.
> 
> ...


The pimp penquins are the ones wearing the designer tuxes?


----------



## Adept (Mar 17, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The biologists above simply note that ALL other animals have sex for procreation only. Why are humans different? They would posit that it is rediculous to claim that we are any different.


 Well, thats just silly. Humans are clearly different in many other ways. We blush (was Mark Twain right about that?), we feel regret, we have opposable thumbs, we wear clothes for no sensible reason, etc. 

 Sex=fun. Thats all there is to it. By yourself, with a friend or with a group. Its all good!

 Are you trying to ask _why_ its fun? Because that's a whole other question.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 17, 2005)

Yeah, I hear its fun.  I hope to try it, someday.


----------



## thepanjr (Mar 17, 2005)

sex is for having babies thats all


----------



## bignick (Mar 17, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Yeah, I hear its fun.  I hope to try it, someday.


 You gotta remember that all those chicks can't see you while you're still in "invisible stealth ninja mode"...that's probably your biggest problem...


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 18, 2005)

bignick said:
			
		

> You gotta remember that all those chicks can't see you while you're still in "invisible stealth ninja mode"...that's probably your biggest problem...


 That, or the fact that I am, well, Ugly, and a Pain in the ***.

 Theoretically, as a ninja I should be thick with women, cuz ya know...

 "Chicks Dig Assassins"


----------



## Raewyn (Mar 18, 2005)

thepanjr said:
			
		

> sex is for having babies thats all


 


and your reasoning behind this statement is....................................????????


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 18, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> Well, thats just silly. Humans are clearly different in many other ways. We blush (was Mark Twain right about that?), we feel regret, we have opposable thumbs, we wear clothes for no sensible reason, etc.
> 
> Sex=fun. Thats all there is to it. By yourself, with a friend or with a group. Its all good!
> 
> Are you trying to ask _why_ its fun? Because that's a whole other question.


Let's look at it comparatively:  "Humans only eat for nutrition....."  If that was true, why do we have 'comfort foods' and 'junk food' and fine dining.....get it?  If the only reason people ate was to satisfy nutritional needs then there would not be bulhemia/anorexia or over eating because as soon as we satified the nutritional requirements we would stop eating.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 18, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Let's look at it comparatively:  "Humans only eat for nutrition....."  If that was true, why do we have 'comfort foods' and 'junk food' and fine dining.....get it?  If the only reason people ate was to satisfy nutritional needs then there would not be bulhemia/anorexia or over eating because as soon as we satified the nutritional requirements we would stop eating.



Ya'll must be a bunch of free swinging folks...

Not a single person, besides the one troll who posted, actually believes that sex is for procreation!  

I'm a little surprised by this actually.  Like I said before, common religions like catholicism believe that sex is only for procreation.  That is dogma.  It is the underpinning belief behind all sorts of religious sexual restrictions.  Most christian religions follow suit with this idea and it is a major pillar behind the birth control, abortion, and "family values" debates.

Biologically speaking the idea "sex is for procreation" is ultra-darwinistic.  The implications is carries is that our genes drive everything we do and that they have the power to over ride our free will.  This idea reduces the purpose of all life down to merely passing our genes on into the next generation.  

Believing that sex is more changes many things...

Think about these idea and about how much our society has been shaped by this message.  Then think about the implications of believing that sex has many more purposes then just procreation...

Homosexuality cannot be unnatural.  If sex is for more then just procreation, then the sexual relationship between two people reflects the loving bond that formed between those individuals.  This bond and this relationship is now just as human as anything else people do.  What reason is there for denying homosexuals any rights?

Abortion is a natural and normal response to unwanted pregnancy.  Sex for procreation only leads to a belief that every pregnancy is sacred and to the idea that "people should only be having sex to make babies."  This is truly one of the underpinning beliefs in the anti-abortion mythos.  If this is not true and people have sex for a variety of reasons and pregancy just happens to be the result, the obvious response is to terminate the pregancy.  The pregnancy, like a hangover, was the unintended consequence and abortion like aspirin, is simply the cure.

Another thing that changes is that all sorts of sexual relationships now have justification.  Polygamy, casual sex, swinging, bestiality, and to some extent some of what would be considered pedastery is now just a matter of personal preference and choice.  If two or three or four people decided to get together and have sex for fun, friendship and commradery how can anyone "look down" upon them now?

Sure, there are other factors like sexually transmitted disease that come into play, but even the stigma of these are reduced.  You can catch a deadly disease from shaking someones hand, from being in the same room as a sick person, from not cooking your food properly.  STDs are now no different or anymore "dangerous" then any other disease.

What do you think now?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Ya'll must be a bunch of free swinging folks...
> 
> Not a single person, besides the one troll who posted, actually believes that sex is for procreation!
> 
> ...


Actually the idea in Catholism/Christianity is that sex is not just for procreation but that it is a 'sacrament' or a gift from God that is a sign of his divine love, according to the doctrine. To use that sacrament in an abusive, misguided or out right 'wrong' way is what the church stands against. If the church only stated that sex was for procreation, unwed mothers would not get the stigma that they have in the past. Remember too that it isn't just 'sex is for procreation' as much as 'procreative acts are the only acceptable sex' as well. That was not always a huge factor of the Catholic/Christian Faith too. That was introduced after the establishment of the Catholic Church.

THe other factor to be considered is the 'act' of sex you are describing. "Sex" can be construed as something more than or not exclusive to "intercourse" which is usually defined as the biological act of man and woman engaging in the 'act' that will make babies (to put it as gently and lengthy as possible).

"Sex" can be many things depending on the perception: Foreplay, oral, manual.... without getting too specific.

I think the idea that 'sex' is just for procreation is a view from the macro perspectives of Sociological study/Biological study not the human level.

There are many things that people do that can be called 'sex' that would not make babies. "intercourse" is not always the motive nor the goal...and if anything the 'making babies' part can inhibit sexual desire at certain points for certain people .

Religiously, sexual restrictions/guidelines are there to promote the best 'sex' context based on that particular faith. In general, the restrictions reinforce the timeliness/emotionally appropriate motives and the appropriate partnering of people for sex to be productive. It does not say that 'there are no other reasons for sex' so much as 'there are no other GOOD/RIGHT reasons for sex.'

Religious views about abortion/homosexuallity...are based on the idea the humans are internally polarized between 'nature' or the 'body' and the 'spirit/divine' and wants people to elevate themselves above the 'natural' to strive for the 'divine.'


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Another thing that changes is that all sorts of sexual relationships now have justification. Polygamy, casual sex, swinging, bestiality, and to some extent some of what would be considered pedastery is now just a matter of personal preference and choice. If two or three or four people decided to get together and have sex for fun, friendship and commradery how can anyone "look down" upon them now?
> 
> What do you think now?
> 
> upnorthkyosa


People can acknowledge and recognize that there are many motives for sex but that does not mean that all and any motive is tolerable or acceptable.

Go to the other extreme from the 'act of creating life' to the 'act of taking a life' as in killing.  There are many motives/reasons for killing but not all are acceptable - they are recognized but not tolerated.

Your points about sex, if made about killing, would look very odd:

Killing another person for out of rage, impulse, anti-social behavior, inheritance, robbery....all are just 'natural' and shouldn't be looked down on.

If two or three people decide to get together and kill a child that is not acceptable to me anymore than two three people getting together to engage in sexual acts with a child is acceptable.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 18, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Actually the idea in Catholism/Christianity is that sex is not just for procreation but that it is a 'sacrament' or a gift from God that is a sign of his divine love, according to the doctrine. To use that sacrament in an abusive, misguided or out right 'wrong' way is what the church stands against. If the church only stated that sex was for procreation, unwed mothers would not get the stigma that they have in the past. Remember too that it isn't just 'sex is for procreation' as much as 'procreative acts are the only acceptable sex' as well. That was not always a huge factor of the Catholic/Christian Faith too. That was introduced after the establishment of the Catholic Church.
> 
> THe other factor to be considered is the 'act' of sex you are describing. "Sex" can be construed as something more than or not exclusive to "intercourse" which is usually defined as the biological act of man and woman engaging in the 'act' that will make babies (to put it as gently and lengthy as possible).
> 
> ...



Personally, I find myself in almost totally agreement with what you are saying.  I would argue against anyone who said that sex is for procreation only for the same reasons that you are laying out.

As far as Catholicism goes, though, their Sacremental view of sex, does not really alter the "sex for procreation only" position they have taken to much.  The only thing that it really does is FURTHER restrict sexual behavior between adults.  Not only is sex for procreation only, but it must only be done by married couples.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Religiously, sexual restrictions/guidelines are there to promote the best 'sex' context based on that particular faith. In general, the restrictions reinforce the timeliness/emotionally appropriate motives and the appropriate partnering of people for sex to be productive. It does not say that 'there are no other reasons for sex' so much as 'there are no other GOOD/RIGHT reasons for sex.'



Okay, what I think you are trying to say as that married sex for procreation only is the only good/right reason for sex according to most christian relgions.  What I find interesting is that 100% of the people who voted on this thread disagreed with that position.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Religious views about abortion/homosexuallity...are based on the idea the humans are internally polarized between 'nature' or the 'body' and the 'spirit/divine' and wants people to elevate themselves above the 'natural' to strive for the 'divine.'



That seems pretty vague.  I'm not understanding where you are going with this.  I would posit that most of the abortion/homosexual/proper sexual conduct positions held by christians stem out of the belief that married sex for procreation only is the only good/right sex.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1.  As far as Catholicism goes, though, their Sacremental view of sex, does not really alter the "sex for procreation only" position they have taken to much. The only thing that it really does is FURTHER restrict sexual behavior between adults. Not only is sex for procreation only, but it must only be done by married couples.
> 
> 2.  Okay, what I think you are trying to say as that married sex for procreation only is the only good/right reason for sex according to most christian relgions. What I find interesting is that 100% of the people who voted on this thread disagreed with that position.
> 
> 3.  That seems pretty vague. I'm not understanding where you are going with this. I would posit that most of the abortion/homosexual/proper sexual conduct positions held by christians stem out of the belief that married sex for procreation only is the only good/right sex.


1.  The point is that Sex is not viewed as 'procreation only' but that it is a 'sacred act' and that the product of that sacred act is a blessing if it is children...which leads to the sacredness of life/anti-aboriton view.  The dogmatic explanation that most folks who are not Catholic, left the Catholic Church or are not versed in Vatican 2000 language is where the stereotype that 'sex for married people and only to make babies' comes from.  The sexual act is a living symbol/gesture of God's love on earth according to Catholic views.  When you take your husband/wife to bed, euphemistically, the spirit of that act is suppose to be of love.  Sort of a variation on the "when two or more are gathered..." Idea (only Catholics aren't suppose to have the more than two part for this one).

2.  No, what I am saying that sex is that according to Catholic doctrine, sex is a divine gift that should only be shared with your wife or husband and not spread all over (adultery).  The children that come from that act are viewed as gifts.

3.  It isn't vague at all.  Christians are always talking about 'original sin' and the conflict of good and evil and how that struggle exists internally and externally for people.  We are made up of good and bad parts, when we choose 'good' things, we are closer to touching the divine.  When we choose 'bad' things, we are slipping farther from that.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 18, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> People can acknowledge and recognize that there are many motives for sex but that does not mean that all and any motive is tolerable or acceptable.
> 
> Go to the other extreme from the 'act of creating life' to the 'act of taking a life' as in killing.  There are many motives/reasons for killing but not all are acceptable - they are recognized but not tolerated.
> 
> ...



I think that it would look very odd because there is a huge difference in ramifications.  So huge that sex and killing cannot be interchanged totally.  In any situation involving killing, one or more people will not survive.  Two or more people can decided to have sex and everyone will walk away (well maybe after some rest ).

According to 100 % of the people who voted on this thread, sex can be an act of creation AND it can be something else; an act of love, an act of friendship, an act of bonding, etc.  If we did a similar poll regarding killing and the rightness or wrongness of it, we may get the same results, but those results do not resolve the inherit difference between the two.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> If two or three people decide to get together and kill a child that is not acceptable to me anymore than two three people getting together to engage in sexual acts with a child is acceptable.



Regardless of the inherit difference between sex and killing that I noted above, both of these examples share a fair amount of gray.  As far as the sex issue goes, I think this is telling.

What if the two or three people are the parents and doctors decided whether or not to terminate a brain dead child?

A child in our culture is anyone under 18.  What if a group of 16-19 year olds decide to have sex in a responsible manner?  You could conceivably get a situation where two or three "adults" have sex with a "child".


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think that it would look very odd because there is a huge difference in ramifications. So huge that sex and killing cannot be interchanged totally. In any situation involving killing, one or more people will not survive. Two or more people can decided to have sex and everyone will walk away (well maybe after some rest ).
> 
> According to 100 % of the people who voted on this thread, sex can be an act of creation AND it can be something else; an act of love, an act of friendship, an act of bonding, etc. If we did a similar poll regarding killing and the rightness or wrongness of it, we may get the same results, but those results do not resolve the inherit difference between the two.
> 
> ...


Of course there are differences, but in the end both acts carry a large burden of consequence: The damage you do to survivors of your victim, the end of a human life, an unplanned pregnancy/parental responsibility and choices....

If the differences are so drastic then your use of the killing scenario is moot. That aside, is the child in your pederasty scenario also brain dead/comatose/mentally deficient in some capacity?

This could get really long if all that is going to happen is dissecting the analogies/comparisons instead of recognizing the points.


----------



## thepanjr (Mar 18, 2005)

we do for nothing


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 18, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> 1.  The point is that Sex is not viewed as 'procreation only' but that it is a 'sacred act' and that the product of that sacred act is a blessing if it is children...which leads to the sacredness of life/anti-aboriton view.  The dogmatic explanation that most folks who are not Catholic, left the Catholic Church or are not versed in Vatican 2000 language is where the stereotype that 'sex for married people and only to make babies' comes from.  The sexual act is a living symbol/gesture of God's love on earth according to Catholic views.  When you take your husband/wife to bed, euphemistically, the spirit of that act is suppose to be of love.  Sort of a variation on the "when two or more are gathered..." Idea (only Catholics aren't suppose to have the more than two part for this one).
> 
> 2.  No, what I am saying that sex is that according to Catholic doctrine, sex is a divine gift that should only be shared with your wife or husband and not spread all over (adultery).  The children that come from that act are viewed as gifts.



I think that one of the things that you are forgetting is the Catholic stance on birth control.  According their Catechism, every sex act should remain open for God to bless.  This belief directly stems from the belief that sex is for procreation only.

Not every christian denomination has strictures against birth control, but I would say that many/most share the spirit of that belief which is that sex is for procreation only.

Sex is both a sacred act and for procreation only.  My point is that the sacredness of this act is judged by meeting the standard "for procreation only."



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 3.  It isn't vague at all.  Christians are always talking about 'original sin' and the conflict of good and evil and how that struggle exists internally and externally for people.  We are made up of good and bad parts, when we choose 'good' things, we are closer to touching the divine.  When we choose 'bad' things, we are slipping farther from that.



I agree, but I think you are missing my point.  The moral bar that most christians use to judge appropriate sexual behavior is the belief that sex is for procreation only.  If nobody beliefs this, then the realm of what is appropriate has now become greatly expanded.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> The point is that Sex is not viewed as 'procreation only' but that it is a 'sacred act' and that the product of that sacred act is a blessing if it is children...which leads to the sacredness of life/anti-aboriton view.



The sacred and for procreation only, cannot be separated if you look at the whole of the sexual restrictions in the church.  

In my opinion, _the sanctity of life_ point is separate from telling a person how they can and cannot have sex.  There is no queston that the sactity of life point is tied up in the abortion debate though.  I would say that it is the _other _ pillar that holds up the anti-abortion side's position.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 18, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Of course there are differences, but in the end both acts carry a large burden of consequence: The damage you do to survivors of your victim, the end of a human life, an unplanned pregnancy/parental responsibility and choices.....



Sure, both acts can carry a large burden of consequence, but the burden for killing is much larger.  Someone always dies when one kills.  When one has sex, someone does not always get pregnant.  Here is a good way to describe my point, I would consider masturbation to be a sex act.  What comparison can possibly be drawn between masturbation and killing?



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> If the differences are so drastic then your use of the killing scenario is moot. That aside, is the child in your pederasty scenario also brain dead/comatose/mentally deficient in some capacity?



I don't think its moot.  I would say that it erases the line drawn in the sand.

As far as the supposed pedastery scenario I described, I would not describe what those people did as pedastery.  The people involved willing choose to participate in the sexual act.

You do imply interesting points regarding free will and mental capacity, though.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> This could get really long if all that is going to happen is dissecting the analogies/comparisons instead of recognizing the points.



If an analogy is insufficient to describe reality or draws a false comparison, there is nothing wrong or worthless in pointing that out.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If an analogy is insufficient to describe reality or draws a false comparison, there is nothing wrong or worthless in pointing that out.


The false conclusions is being drawn at the point where _sex for procreation only_ is the only position that you will accept. I have posited a more comprehensive explanation based on my direct contact with Catholic doctrine yet it is insufficient in your eyes. The 'sactity of life' idea is also behind the sacramental view of sex. It does not assume that every sexual contact will lead to pregnancy. It does say that 'sex' should be done in away that allows the sacramental blessing of children to be possible - thus the stand on any form of sexual practice that is not procreative in nature (manual, oral, others...). 

Christian groups that are antiabortion also teach the "Rhythmn Method" of natural contraception as an acceptable alternative for 'birth control' (pills, condoms...) so that you can engage in sex as an act of love/union/intimacy without leading to procreation. The idea being basically "If God wants you to have a baby, by golly he'll make it happen - even if your not ripe for it." I don't think it is reliable nor do I think that birth control is a 'sin.'

The idea that the sex act doesn't always lead to pregnancy equates to the killing comparison because if a man uses deadly force he attempts to kill but may not always be successful just as someone engaging in sex is going to produce a baby.

On the issue of pederasty: Are you trying to tell me that a child of 8 years, even with normal mental capacity, giving his consent to engage in sexual acts with a grown man is acceptable reason to look the other way and tolerate such behavior? 

Even outside of christian/religious moral codes such behavior is not commonly accepted now.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I agree, but I think you are missing my point. The moral bar that most christians use to judge appropriate sexual behavior is the belief that sex is for procreation only. If nobody beliefs this, then the realm of what is appropriate has now become greatly expanded.


I thought the moral bar was that love is sacred is holiest when it is done as an act of love and fidelity between a man and woman in marriage within the christian docrtrine.  Children are an obvious and direct result from regular sexual practice if things work out right.

As far as I can tell, the basic message is that if your going to engage in sex, be prepared for the consequences - children.  AND be prepared to take responsibility for those consequences/results - parental responsibility because life is precious and sacred.

I have never heard a priest or lay person of the Catholic faith or any other tell me individually or in mass/church that sex was only meant to make babies.  That includes going through the confirmation process and participation in the Pre Cana process as we were getting married.  Catholics generally are asked during the interview with the priest for Pre Cana of we would intended to have and would welcome children into our lives.  To which the answer was yes.  The priest never said that when we lay down together we should only be doing so in an effort to get her pregnant.

Based on your idea that 'procreation only' priests would be advising women and men that can't have children for what ever reason that they would be sinning by engaging in sexual acts since it doesn't result in pregnancy.  That dog don't hunt for me.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 18, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> The false conclusions is being drawn at the point where _sex for procreation only_ is the only position that you will accept.  I have posited a more comprehensive explanation based on my direct contact with Catholic doctrine yet it is insufficient in your eyes....



You more comprehensive explanation only dodges around the central meme that I have posited.  btw - I happen to have quite a bit of experience with catholicism 



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> The 'sactity of life' idea is also behind the sacramental view of sex.  It does not assume that every sexual contact will lead to pregnancy.  It does say that *'sex' should be done in away that allows the sacramental blessing of children to be possible * - *thus the stand on any form of sexual practice that is not procreative in nature (manual, oral, others*...).



Please look at the boldfaced statements...

Like I said before, "sex for procreation only" is the dogma of the church and I don't know why we are arguing about this because you seem to have a good grasp on that concept.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Christian groups that are antiabortion also teach the "Rhythmn Method" of natural contraception as an acceptable alternative for 'birth control' (pills, condoms...) so that you can engage in sex as an act of love/union/intimacy without leading to procreation.  The idea being basically "If God wants you to have a baby, by golly he'll make it happen - even if your not ripe for it."  I don't think it is reliable nor do I think that birth control is a 'sin.'



I don't think that birth control is a sin either.  I would like to point out that the position above is basically stating that all sex acts must leave open the possibility of pregnancy.  Again, this is showing the belief that I've been pointing out.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> The idea that the sex act doesn't always lead to pregnancy equates to the killing comparison because if a man uses deadly force he attempts to kill but may not always be successful.



Oh that is silly.  It's not killing if you are not successful.  And like a said before, two people can have sex and walk away satisfied and happy.  That will not happen with killing.  They are not interchangeable.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> On the issue of pederasty:  Are you trying to tell me that a child of 8 years, even with normal mental capacity, giving his consent to engage in sexual acts with a grown man is acceptable reason to look the other way and tolerate such behavior?



I believe the example that I used had 16-19 year olds participating in sex acts.  When you lower the age limit lots of other factors come into play.  Maturity for one thing.  In my opinion, there is no way in hell an eight year old could give consent for sex.  Saying that one does not believe that sex is procreation only opens the field for what is acceptable, but it does not mean that anything goes.  There are other factors...


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 18, 2005)

The thread starter for this was "why do we do it?" and the idea was whether it was for procreation alone or were other factors involved.

The unanimous response in the poll has been that human beings engage in sex (in any possible varieties of ways) for many different reasons.

There was no mention of what was 'good sexual practice' or 'bad sexual practice' in the beginning.  In no way does that fact that people say "Yeah, people will have sex for reasons other than procreation" imply that any and all sex acts are acceptable on a moral level.

I can say "Yeah, I know people rape others and use sex as violence" but that doesn't mean that it should be tolerated or accepted.  It may be natural, as in the genetic predisposition toward that behavior, but that doesn't mean that I have to tolerate rapists in my world.

I see what your saying UpN about 'natural' but your not recognizing that 'natural' simply means it occurs in nature, not that all things in nature should be tolerated.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1.  Please look at the boldfaced statements...Like I said before, "sex for procreation only" is the dogma of the church and I don't know why we are arguing about this because you seem to have a good grasp on that concept.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 18, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I thought the moral bar was that love is sacred is holiest when it is done as an act of love and fidelity between a man and woman in marriage within the christian docrtrine.  Children are an obvious and direct result from regular sexual practice if things work out right.



Its not the obvious result, its the desired result.  There are plenty of bible passages that speak to this.  Heck, Deuteronomy flat out says that sex is for babies only.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> As far as I can tell, the basic message is that if your going to engage in sex, be prepared for the consequences - children.  AND be prepared to take responsibility for those consequences/results - parental responsibility because life is precious and sacred.



Consequences = children.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> I have never heard a priest or lay person of the Catholic faith or any other tell me individually or in mass/church that sex was only meant to make babies.  That includes going through the confirmation process and participation in the Pre Cana process as we were getting married.  Catholics generally are asked during the interview with the priest for Pre Cana of we would intended to have and would welcome children into our lives.  To which the answer was yes.  The priest never said that when we lay down together we should only be doing so in an effort to get her pregnant.



I have heard priests preach exactly that.  My wife and I even took a Natural Family Planning class that _emphasized _ that...and voila, we had our first child shortly afterward.  Oh, and by the way, I was Baptised, Confessed, Communed, Confirmed and Married Catholic.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Based on your idea that 'procreation only' priests would be advising women and men that can't have children for what ever reason that they would be sinning by engaging in sexual acts since it doesn't result in pregnancy.  That dog don't hunt for me.



Priests advise homosexuals to not have sex because they can't have children and its wrong in God's eyes.  That dog don't hunt for me.

By limiting sex to a man and a woman, that is symbolic of the view that sex is for procreation only, because, you know, God, just might work a miracle.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I have heard priests preach exactly that. My wife and I even took a Natural Family Planning class that _emphasized _that...and voila, we had our first child shortly afterward. Oh, and by the way, I was Baptised, Confessed, Communed, Confirmed and Married Catholic.


So you went to a "Family Planning class" that emphasized sex for procreation...what a surprise.....

So was I and also attended sessions concerning the Vatican II (not 2000, my bad.  Catholic 2.0 - faster, more guilty than ever ) doctrinal shifts.  the two priests that attended the Confirmation process conducted the Vat II sessions and one of them conducted our wedding.  Their session discussions on this topic are what I am mainly working from for this discussion.

The sticking point is the "ONLY" part of sex and procreation.  I seriously don't know a single person, Catholic or not, that truly believes and espouses to the idea that sex should only be for procreation.

By that view, sex isn't about LOVE or GOD it is about producing bodies.  By that view, the church would be requiring medical exams for procreative compatability as approval for marriage of couples.  "I'm sorry, your sperm aren't going to work with her ovaries and you won't make babies....NO MARRIAGE FOR YOU!"

Please.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 18, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> So you went to a "Family Planning class" that emphasized sex for procreation...what a surprise.....
> 
> So was I and also attended sessions concerning the Vatican II (not 2000, my bad.  Catholic 2.0 - faster, more guilty than ever ) doctrinal shifts.  the two priests that attended the Confirmation process conducted the Vat II sessions and one of them conducted our wedding.  Their session discussions on this topic are what I am mainly working from for this discussion.
> 
> ...



If anything, this post is witty 

You are forgetting the symbolism involved and focusing too much on the actual biology...go figure.  The symbolism and the strictures imply "only" whether people actually believe it our not.  The bible says "only" multiple times through analogy or by straight out saying it.

I do not believe that sex is for procreation only and I believe that there are lots of other factors that naturally come into play.  It doesn't surprise me that you can't find any peers that believe this.  It goes against our nature.

With that being said, I think that many of the sexual restrictions based off of this concept and generally accepted by society still, go against our nature.

The point of this thread was to look at this concept.  See what people actually believe and then talk about the implications of those beliefs.  Believe that sex is for more then procreation litterally cancels out a great many societal strictures on sex and I don't know if people realize this.

BTW - discussions of pedastery and talking about consent and maturity and responsibility, that is all part of the discussion, too.  If there are lots of other factors that drive humans to have sex, what is appropriate and what isn't?


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Priests advise homosexuals to not have sex because they can't have children and its wrong in God's eyes. That dog don't hunt for me.
> 
> .


Actually it's more about the Sodomistic nature of the nature of the sex that causes problems for Christian types than the 'it won't produce children' aspect.  Remember that at it's roots, Christianity is based in Judeism.  "Back in the day" of places like Sodom and Ghomora (sp?), sexual free for alls and orgies were tempting good Jewish folks away from the flock.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 18, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Actually it's more about the Sodomistic nature of the nature of the sex that causes problems for Christian types than the 'it won't produce children' aspect.  Remember that at it's roots, Christianity is based in Judeism.  "Back in the day" of places like Sodom and Ghomora (sp?), sexual free for alls and orgies were tempting good Jewish folks away from the flock.



Look at the context of the sodom and gemorah story.  Look at the sexual strictures the bible talks about surrounding that story.  In some bibles, sodomy is against jewish law because it is considered unnatural and ungodly.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If anything, this post is witty
> 
> You are forgetting the symbolism involved and focusing too much on the actual biology...go figure. The symbolism and the strictures imply "only" whether people actually believe it our not. The bible says "only" multiple times through analogy or by straight out saying it.
> 
> ...


What symbolism are you discussing?  How am I focusing on the 'biology' too much?  The 'bible' doesn't say a thing as much as gets interpretted by people that want to use it to support their beliefs.

What is symbolic about an absolute term like 'only.'  The bible also has incidents where brother marries sisters or daughters have sex with fathers yet those are not accepted as practice in the church.  If your talking about parables, cautionary tales, inspiration tales or something like that I can't tell.

Nothing is 'cancelled' out simply because people recognize the complexities in sexual motives and practices.  I think that people realize that there is more than one way to skin a cat on this topic.  Look at the media/internet and more.  

The fact that people say "yeah, sex can be for XYZ reasons" simply means that they know about them, not that they approve of them.  

Societal/cultural restrictions on sex, marriage, or any other personal act have evolved because of the conflict between what is good for the group and what is good for the individual.  Whether catholic or otherwise, any social restriction has to acknowledge that there are other  reasons for something like sex in order for it to focus on those motives/practices that it wants to support.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Look at the context of the sodom and gemorah story. Look at the sexual strictures the bible talks about surrounding that story. In some bibles, sodomy is against jewish law because it is considered unnatural and ungodly.


Yes let's look at the OT and the story of LOT.

Lot offers his daughters to the mob that is attempting to gang rape and defile the two messangers from God to do with as they wish if they agree to leave the messengers alone.

Lot's daughters seduce him with wine and sleep with him because they fear they are the last humans and must repopulate the Jewish tribe.  

In other places in the bible:

Psalms has some of beautiful passion poetry that has been interpretted as very sexual/sensual and there is no mention of children being produced in them.

Sisters marry brothers/cousins. 

Ruth seduces her dead husbands brother to stay a legal part of the family and is celebrated. .....the offspring of all these marriages and sexual acts are not struck down by God or suffer mutilation/deformity.

Adam and Eve were never 'married' by a formal ritual.

Joseph as Jesus' father is celebrated for ignoring Mosaic law and marrying his pregnant fiance.

Jesus pardon's an adulterous woman.

Jesus never marries and produces offspring himself (as far as the bible tells.).

There really is a very unclear message about sex in the Bible.


----------



## lulflo (Mar 19, 2005)

I would offer the idea of energy. Evolution is achieved through the reproductive system and the fact that a female can provide and sustain life within her womb tells me that there is something there that has not been explained. Talk about being close to God. Creation of everything was the task of "God", but here is an example of something that was created and is now creating in and of itself. I think that there is an urge to be with God (whether conscious or not) and that sex is a way to achieve that closeness (specifically for males). It has been my experience, as a male, that women seem to have (some taking for granted) this closeness to God at all times, while males can only achieve this feeling by external means. I know very few men who have actually been able to meditate to this level, but I know many who know this closeness, without truly understanding it, by means of a LOVING, INTIMATE sexual experience - not necessarily casual sex. I think the difference is that one has the intent to be close with their spouse or significant other, rather than just "going for broke". I think that is enough said here though, and of course, this is just one male's opinion.

  Farang - Larry


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 19, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Yes let's look at the OT and the story of LOT.
> 
> Lot offers his daughters to the mob that is attempting to gang rape and defile the two messangers from God to do with as they wish if they agree to leave the messengers alone.
> 
> ...



So, what you are trying to say is that the bible is contradictory and confusing regarding its messages on sex?

I would agree, it is a poor choice.  It seems to me that Catholic dogma on the matter picks and chooses the verses they want to follow.

I found some pamphlets I had received when I was younger that talk about sex for children being most "Godly".  

Since every time one has sex, one cannot have a child, catholics say that one must be open to the possibility at all times.  This pushes the thought of procreation for childbearing to its logical limits.  This position takes into account the actual biology of the human body and shows a bit of the catholic open mindedness to science.

Of course, there is this song...



> There are Jews in the world, there are Buddists,
> There are Hindus and Mormons and then
> There are those that follow Mohammad, but
> I've never been one of them.
> ...


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 21, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> So, what you are trying to say is that the bible is contradictory and confusing regarding its messages on sex?
> 
> I would agree, it is a poor choice. It seems to me that Catholic dogma on the matter picks and chooses the verses they want to follow.
> 
> ...


Picking and choosing the sources that they want to follow.....hmmmmmm

As any individual/group/instititution will justify itself and his/its position on a topic/idea by citing 'proof' that has been selected precisely because it supports that idea but, when represented, neglects to acknowledge the multiple examples of supporting evidence to the contrary.....

"Most 'Godly'" does not mean that the church isn't aware that there are other reasons/motives for sex.

As I said, being open to the possibility of children is very different from 'sex only for procreation.'  The 'only' aspect does not allow for the love/union/sacramental element of the act itself and only focuses on the product of that act.  THat is not the message that laymem/women or leaders discussed anywhere that I went/talked about this stuff.

Again, I can make a laudry list of reasons why people kill, have sex, eat.....but that doesn't mean that I think ALL of those reasons on the list are healthy, safe or appropriate - it is only a list.  If you had asked people "Why do we do it, and what are 'good' reasons/ways that we 'do it'" the responses would have been an illustration of 'acceptable/appropriate' and 'inappropriate' motives/acts/reasons.

As it is, it is just a laundry list.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 21, 2005)

FYI - that song was from Monty Python.  The title is "Every Sperm is Sacred" and it appeared in the comedy, "The Meaning of Life."

I realized I didn't credit the source in my above post when I reread this thread.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 21, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> FYI - that song was from Monty Python. The title is "Every Sperm is Sacred" and it appeared in the comedy, "The Meaning of Life."
> 
> I realized I didn't credit the source in my above post when I reread this thread.


Yes, I remember the skit about the Irish/Catholic family that had WAYYYY too many kids floating around too.  In context it was pretty funny.  Along with the sex ed. final exam where the teacher brought in a covey of prostitutes to use as 'test material' so to speak.  Irreverent, but somehow classy in its own twisted way.

Anything sounds better with a British accent it seems.


----------

