Why do we do it?

[Cryozombie]

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

 

[thepanjr]

sex is for having babies thats all

 

[bignick]

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]

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]

sex is for having babies thats all

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

 

[loki09789]

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]

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]

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...


What do you think now?

upnorthkyosa

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]

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]

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

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.



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".

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]

we do for nothing

 

[Makalakumu]

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."

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.

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.