Pleasure or Reproduction

[brandonslau]

I decided to make a post for a discussion/debate for this topic.
I am just intrested in other people's opinions from different religions,backgrounds, whatever.

Do you think intercourse is for pleasure? or is it only for reproduction?why do you feel your answer/opinion is right and why is the other wrong.

[JediKaren]

(keep this serious, mature, and on topic. Use proper terms, not slang for body parts)

[dash]

er.. why not both?
i mean.. evolution made it so that there would be more drive to reproduce if there was pleasure involved..
the people that do it ONLY for pleasure are juking the system
and the ones that do it ONLY for reproduction are missing the full effect of our animalistic drives..

both together were intended to stay together..
but.. its not so bad to juke the system sometimes

(couldnt give a simple answer huh?)

[ismavatar]

Obviously the original evolutionary intent was to assist in ensuring reproduction if something immediate and positive came from it, thus why pleasure entered into it. At this point in time, though, we've come to understand the system and don't need that incentive to continue our species.

Thus, I see nothing wrong with "juking the system" so to say, because we're not harming anything, and the benefits are very clear and much research supports them (for example, it makes you happier and healthier), whereas we could probably actually afford to cut back on the reproductive purpose since we are experiencing worldwide overpopulation.

I think it would be interesting if we did the same thing with human reproduction as we've been doing with cattle and pets for years - if we actually had breeding programs where we tried to utilize and encourage the best evolutionary traits by breeding them, rather than leaving it up to the population who will usually just breed on a class basis (e.g. upper class generally avoids breeding with the lower class, even if there may be some evolutionary advantage to doing so)

[dash]

... "thus"?

.. i didnt say juking the system was bad.. but it IS juking the system.. because it was intended for one perpose,
and only one perpose..

im not saying its the only reason to do it,
im saying its the only intended reason to do it

and i get what you mean about overpopulation.. but im talking about what it was made for, not how it can best be used..

[ismavatar]

Regardless of if it was evolutionarily intended or not, who's complaining? The apes?

"Sex in bonobo society transcends reproduction, as it does in humans. It serves as a way of bonding, exchanging energy and sharing pleasure."

[dash]

... i.. didnt say anyone was complaining..
and im speaking scientifically.. i didnt say anything about social intimacy..
what do you take me for? some sorta prude?
let be clear here:

i dont think its a bad idea, im not against it, i actually like the idea

now will you STOP putting words in my mouth just so you have someone to argue with?

[snowind]

ismavatar said:

Obviously the original evolutionary intent was to assist in ensuring reproduction if something immediate and positive came from it, thus why pleasure entered into it. At this point in time, though, we've come to understand the system and don't need that incentive to continue our species.

Thus, I see nothing wrong with "juking the system" so to say, because we're not harming anything, and the benefits are very clear and much research supports them (for example, it makes you happier and healthier), whereas we could probably actually afford to cut back on the reproductive purpose since we are experiencing worldwide overpopulation.

I think it would be interesting if we did the same thing with human reproduction as we've been doing with cattle and pets for years - if we actually had breeding programs where we tried to utilize and encourage the best evolutionary traits by breeding them, rather than leaving it up to the population who will usually just breed on a class basis (e.g. upper class generally avoids breeding with the lower class, even if there may be some evolutionary advantage to doing so)

Although I usually agree with you the last part you said sounds really bad, that wouldn't allow free will, and well... I wouldn't want to live in a society were they force you to breed with someone you don't know, besides imagine the effect on the kids minds... There are many negative things about that.

[JediKaren]

Dash calm down. It was an personal insult. Don't make it one.

[ismavatar]

Dash calm down. It [wasn't a] personal insult. Don't make it one.

Agreed. I wasn't attacking you, I was just being my usual self, and I like to make outlandish statements like "who's complaining". I'm glad you're on the same side as me.

The bonobo quote was from this website, by the way.

Although I usually agree with you the last part you said sounds really bad, that wouldn't allow free will, and well... I wouldn't want to live in a society were they force you to breed with someone you don't know, besides imagine the effect on the kids minds... There are many negative things about that.

I'm not saying it would be forced. That's a very bad idea. I for one am quite happy being chaste, and I certainly wouldn't want to be forced into a breeding program.
But we could just use fertilization banks, and possibly even artificial insemination into a willing host mother. I'd certainly consider signing up for that program, when I was ready.

I also made no mention of what to do with the kid after birth, so there's no way to judge how it would effect the kid's mind. For example, he or she could spend the duration of its childhood in the host-mother's care, or he or she could be sent back to the desired true parent(s) for raising, or the likes.
Either way, there are an outstanding number of people who are clearly unfit for parenting who are still doing it, and I'd consider any possible negative effects from being raised in a healthy breeding environment (probably very close to the negative effects from Adopting - however few there are) to be far less than the clear negative effects of being raised by unfit and uncaring parents.

[JediKaren]

I'm not on any side. I'm simple keeping you all from turning this into a flaming

[dash]

I could care less if someone insulted me, its when they twist your words around to make themselves seem smarter.. i hate that.. you'd make a good politician

and im calm.. im just being stern.. and a jerk..

i said all i wanted to on this topic, i better leave before things get too outta hand..

[The Adfeng]

I could argue for both sides. It could be for reproduction, but it could also be for pleasure at the same time. What if you just wanted the pleasure and didn't want reproduction? We now have protection that we can use so that we can have pleasure without the reproduction. So, I could argue either way. I think they could both go hand in hand, or not. But, I'm a person that believes no sex before marriage.

[queenaqua]

::tosses her two cents into the fountain::

I believe both are correct, from an evolutionary standpoint. If our sexual organs hadn't evolved to the point where sex was as pleasurable as it is, the human race would have died out eons ago. (props to Cameron from House here.)

However comma the idea of restricting the act of intercourse, in whatever position or form, to something only reserved for a couple that have gone through a rehearsed ceremony and had a piece of paper notarized with their names, in my mind, is ludicrous and dangerously restrictive. Human nature is what it is, and we at our core, are animals. All we are are animals with sentient thought processes. To suppress our basic instincts, which are feeding, rest and sex, is to move into an unhealthy zone, physically, mentally and emotionally.

That being said, I personally am a huge proponent of preventative care in matters of the flesh, as it were. Forget every preconcieved notion, people are going to have sex PERIOD. Birth control, condoms, IUDs, stop me anytime, are in such a huge surplus right now, there is absolutely ZERO reason in this day and age for an unwanted pregnancy or contracting a sexual disease or infection. But that's another story.

[shaamansu]

There are male and female, of every species for a reason which is reproduction, the continuing of the species.

Sexual intercourse was intended to give pleasure to the male and female for the purpose of reproduction.

Sexual intercourse today, is not always with that purpose in mind. It is for pleasure as well as establishing a bond between the participants.

This purpose is abused at times for sheer pleasure only, and for a false sense of bonding..which is very temporary. This is not only a human problem, but exists in the animal world too.

Without pleasure, no species would survive. There would be no attraction between male and female.

Sexual intercourse is very powerful..and creates a great amount of energy between the participants....which in essence...(for the sake of reproduction)..creates a bond between male and female, thus..establishing that the offspring produced will be well cared for..until they are old enough to leave to begin the cycle again.