Here's a question to mull over: is sexuality inextricably tied to reproduction?
I think the answer is yes. Sex and reproduction are one of the most basic and fundamental cause and effect relationships in biology, and I don't understand how somebody can attempt to dissociate the two. Saying sex is not supposed to lead to pregnancy is like saying jumping out of a plane is not supposed to lead to splatting on the ground.
So, I suppose the obvious implication of my opinion is that you're not supposed to have sex for pleasure. Well, let's take a deeper look at the topic.
The purpose of sex, since time immemorial, and for all species, is to reproduce. It would be somewhat foolish to deny this biological fact. Well, why does that mean sex cannot have more than one purpose? Who says sex can't also be a way to have fun? Well, I guess it can be. My problem is with people who only have sex for pleasure and are frustrated when they become pregnant or have to deal with birth control. They arrogantly think that the laws of nature should fit their vision of the world. I mean, what else were these people expecting? This is why I insist on reminding everybody that sex will lead to pregnancy- surprise, surprise!
As far as I’m aware, homo sapiens is the only creature which pursues sex for pleasure. I’ve heard that dolphins have also been observed having casual sex (how the researchers knew that that was what they were doing is beyond me), but I doubt dolphins also have unwanted pregnancies. The point is, even if other animals do have sex just to enjoy it, they still instinctively recognize that it could very well lead to a birth, and they are fine with that. In fact, they want to increase their population. Dolphins, and other animals, do not attempt to artificially regulate their sexuality (birth control, abortion, and so on- not that animals are capable of this anyway…) so that they can enjoy sex without consequence.
There is also the issue of plain old hedonism. So, somebody might want to have sex for fun. It's none of my business, of course, but I cannot help but think that this person is just pursing their own personal pleasure for pleasure's sake. Besides, are all of our lives so dull and pathetic we have to "sex it up" in order to enjoy it? I do think there's something wrong with that. It's called hedonism, and yet, our society has become far too receptive to it. People don't care anymore about whether they're truly happy, they just want their pleasure. We're slaves, in a sense, and I'm not very comfortable with it. Call me a killjoy, but when the purpose of your life is to recklessly pursue pleasure, well, then I pity you.
Now, to take it to the extreme. Let's say we all come to agree that sex is not linked to reproduction. Perhaps that would lead to increased sexual activity with decreased births- to the point where we are no longer able to sustain the human population and go extinct? (I find it strangely, ironically satisfying to think that one day humanity will die out because of its obsession with pleasure). Or maybe, in some future society, we will grow our children in Matrix-style vats of gooey synthetic amniotic fluid. Are we all prepared to accept the mechanization of humanity?
To continue with this future hypothetical situation, will we all have sex whenever and where ever we want, without consequence? Would we go out for a quick round of sex, the same way people today might randomly take a cigarette break? We humans are biological creatures subject to the laws of nature just like all the other organisms out there. We've just evolved such great intelligence that we can outsmart nature now. But is that a good thing?
The reason why I wrote this blog is to point out that we all treat sex as far too light a topic. It's in movies, books, magazines, on the Internet, and all over television. We have swingers' clubs, promiscuity, and prostitutes. It just all seems... disturbingly unnatural. Are we moving towards an age of totally casual sex? Is it acceptable if one day in the future sex and reproduction are totally unrelated? Or perhaps I’m just some square Puritan, out to ruin everybody’s fun. Maybe I’m overanalyzing things.
Ultimately, all I’m saying is that sex equals babies. If that doesn’t fit your vision of life, then I’m sorry that the laws of nature won’t accommodate poor little you.
Your blog post sounds like a Christian dude trying to write one of Carrie Bradshaw's sex and relationship columns. Just thought I'd mention that.
It's funny to hear a guy try to be an expert on producing babies. My first impressions from reading the post is that it treats complex issues in a very superficial way and that you sound very unknowledgable when it comes to sex and the responsibility of reproduction (i.e. you don't have a uterus).
FYI: bonobos have sex for reasons other than reproduction. How do we know? Because they participate in oral sex and homosexual sex acts.
It sounds like you believe there is something inherently wrong with having sex just for fun or because it feels good. Sex can be a way for someone to enjoy their body, de-stress, or feel close to someone (in a healthy, non-pathological way). I mean if sex is only for reproduction, then only fertile people should only ever have vaginal sex? Every one else should just stay celibate, right? Cuz what's the point? And none of those purely for fun sex acts. Nothing where people get off that doesn't lead to sperm chasing down eggs, right?
You're seriously afraid that available birth control will lead to the end of the species? Thank god for birth control, because it means women can actually have lives and careers outside the home and be able to actually, you know, decide when they get pregnant. I think its a good idea to make sure I have money and a stable relationship before I have a baby. But people have this biologically ingrained desire to have kids. And some people just realy like kids. Sex isn't that overpowering a force, in case you didn't know. The thought of orgasms doesn't make people lose sight of every other goal and desire in their life, like the desire to be parents or be a productive citizen.
Rest assured, cosmic, the species will continue, even if everyone in the entire world decided to have sex just for fun at some point in their life. And people do understand the power of sex. They get that it has the possibility to create a new human being and that it can feel really awesome. They're both pretty powerful results.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person
Wow, I had to look up Carrie Bradshaw... when I realized she was the main character on "Sex and the City," I felt really out of touch. Maybe that shows where I'm coming from. And of course I'll use that television show to again point out that maybe we treat sex far too lightly in today's world.
Also, I don't think religion has anything to do with this post. That wasn't my intention, anyway. My intention was to explore the question in the first sentence. I thought it was interesting, and I got it from a Katha Pollitt book.
I don't think that my lack of a uterus should preempt me from a discussion about sex. Last I checked, the male counterpart was essential in all forms of heterosexual intercourse- and that includes making babies.
I know my post may have turned into a weird anti-sex tirade, but I was initially just interested in finding out whether or not sex is tied to reproduction. It is, right? And that's a pretty serious thing. So shouldn't we treat it accordingly- can (and should) something with such dire natural consequences be treated so lightly- as mere fun?
No, I have nothing against birth control. If it weren't for it, we'd all be in for a world of hurt- who knows how many more millions (hundreds of millions?) of people would be crowding the world right now. If anything, the very existence of birth control is evidence of the relationship between sex and reproduction- the reason it exists is to directly counter this natural cause and effect relationship.
My hypothetical future horror society was meant to point out the extreme (which I did note) consequences of totally separating sex from reproduction. If we're only having sex for pleasure, then we must not be having sex to produce offspring. Drawn to the extreme, that does mean population decrease.
Lastly, I think your last comment is an overgeneralization. People don't understand the power of sex. How many teens out there do you think are having sex while thinking, "Oooh, this could make me pregnant"? These sex fiends are kidding themselves- and playing with fire.
Also, I don't think religion has anything to do with this post. That wasn't my intention, anyway.
Your christianity comes off quite strongly in the post. And honestly, for the life of you, I don't think you could separate your religious beliefs from any of the views you express on this site. And that's fine, that's who you are. Just don't try to fool yourself into thinking that any thing you say about sex isn't fully based in your religious beliefs.
I don't think that my lack of a uterus should preempt me from a discussion about sex.
No, it doesn't prevent you from discussing sex, but it does but it does kind of automatically prevent you from trying to be an expert on the reproductive "consequences" of sex. You don't have the ability to be pregnant or give birth. In fact, as a man you could inpregnant women and presumably never know about it. That's why it sounds kind of hypocritical for you to preach about how serious sex and its consequences are when you will never have to take on the bulk of the responsibility for those consequences. Even just besides pregnancy and birth, all the most effect forms of birth control have to be the responsibility of women as well.
Lastly, I think your last comment is an overgeneralization. People don't understand the power of sex. How many teens out there do you think are having sex while thinking, "Oooh, this could make me pregnant"?
Okay, perhaps it was an overgeneralization. I'll rephrase. Female people understand the power of sex. Better? I think this is something else that, as a guy, you have difficulty understanding. All girls know what sex can lead to. They have to think about it because they are the ones who have to worry about getting pregnant. Guys can delude themselves into believing there are no consequences.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person
I still don't quite agree with the whole idea that whatever I say about sex is worth less than what a woman would say. For some reason, this statement reminded me of white civil rights protesters back in the '60s. Did anyone try to tell them that, since they weren't minorities, they "could never know about" oppression, or it would make them hypocrites to decry prejudice since they never experienced it- especially since they, collectively, were responsible for it?
Anyway, all this aside, what do you think about the relationship between sex and babies? I'm sure I know what it is, but want to elaborate? I'm not looking to pick a fight, it's just that an analysis of my blog's writing, while useful and helpful, is skirting the issue I was interested in finding out about.
Here's a question to mull over: is sexuality inextricably tied to reproduction?
I would suggest that there is a sizeable body of scientific evidence that would reject your assertion. There are many reasons to have sex other than just to get pregnant and have babies.
The purpose of sex, since time immemorial, and for all species, is to reproduce. It would be somewhat foolish to deny this biological fact.
That's ONE "purpose," but its not the ONLY one. Research indicates that species have sex for a variety of reasons, and in many mammals and especially in many primate species sex can serve a wide variety of functions. I would suggest that you might want to read up on Bonobo Sex and Society. Bonobo sexuality is probably the most widely-studied after that of humans.
As far as I’m aware, homo sapiens is the only creature which pursues sex for pleasure.
Many if not most higher-order animals appear to be motivated to have in order to experience the pleasureable sensations associated with the act. And, very few animals have any "sense" of consequence when they have sex with one another. The experience of sex for pleasure is an evolutionary adaptation which "tricks" members of the species into procreating. In many species, these couplings also serve to increase the bonding between individuals within a community group, to assert dominance, to comfort an injured or unhappy member of the group, and to generally relieve the stress of day-to-day survival. Again, read up on the bonobos...they make humans look like complete puritans, and will have sex with each with amazing frequency and variety.
Now, to take it to the extreme. Let's say we all come to agree that sex is not linked to reproduction. Perhaps that would lead to increased sexual activity with decreased births- to the point where we are no longer able to sustain the human population and go extinct?
I am aware of no evidence that would point to this outcome as a serious concern. Humans have been having sex for pleasure (to the great chagrin of many a priest) throughout the whole of recorded human history, and during that time the human population has done nothing but increased.
Ultimately, all I’m saying is that sex equals babies.
Even fertile couples who are having sex during the womans ovulation cycle only have about a 25% change to achieve pregnancy each time they do it. And, there is a great deal of evidence that suggests that many species (including humans) derive other benefits from the sexual act than just the potential to procreate.
If that doesn’t fit your vision of life, then I’m sorry that the laws of nature won’t accommodate poor little you.
I would suggest that before adopting such a sarcastic tone, you might want to do a little research and actually educate yourself on the subject matter of your rants. Just a little bit of study would show you that the "laws of nature" really don't align all that well with your hypothesis.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
And, there is a great deal of evidence that suggests that many species (including humans) derive other benefits from the sexual act than just the potential to procreate.
Some studies suggest that sex during or just before a woman's period will help make it shorter and less painful (if the woman is one to normally get cramps).
And it also helps to exercise the pelvic floor (and abs a little, depending on your positions).
Even fertile couples who are having sex during the womans ovulation cycle only have about a 25% change to achieve pregnancy each time they do it.
25%? That high? I didn't know that.
And then there are the species that don't have a menstrual cycle (and have an estrus cycle instead), who are basically infertile unless in heat, but who still have sex outside of being in heat.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Some studies suggest that sex during or just before a woman's period will help make it shorter and less painful (if the woman is one to normally get cramps).
So does birth control. So, if I do both, am I doubly protected from discomfort? :-D
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
Depends on the birth control as to whether or not you actually have a period. Depo Provera does away with the period entirely while one is on it (and technically, so does The Pill, the bleeding is actually withdrawal). So you don't have a period to do so during.
:tongue:
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I did say that sex could have more than one purpose, and "I guessed" sex could be fun too. But then I noted that my problem with all of this is that some people only have sex for pleasure, forget about how serious it is, and then are surprised or frustrated when they become pregnant (or induce pregnancy). It was in this context that I first made the (yes, very) sarcastic comment that people arrogantly think nature's laws should better accommodate them.
So, people have sex, get pregnant, and are surprised and angry that they just carried out a basic natural principle. That's the issue for me. The solution? Treat sex as the serious matter that it is (can something so serious also be casually fun?). I did spend a disproportionate amount of time and energy being angry at sex, so I'll confess going off topic, and admit that was misleading, too.
The statement that humans were the only species that had sex for pleasure was badly worded- after all, I immediately (and contradictorily) said after that dolphins have sex for pleasure. I'm sure that when bonobos, or dolphins, or whatever other animals have sex for pleasure, they don't actively try to avoid pregnancy, and thus sex is still tied to reproduction for them- the fact that they might not necessarily "know" about this relationship doesn't mean it's not there.
Doesn't the fact that evolution "made" sex pleasurable for many species so they would be more inclined to have it in order to propagate the species strengthen the argument that sex is supposed to lead to reproduction?
The bonobo article said that despite their highly sexualized social organization, bonobo females only give birth about every five years. Why is this? Are they not in heat often enough? Do they simply have low reproduction success rates? I ask because I wonder if bonobos who have sex for whatever social or pleasurable reasons frequently get pregnant from it. If that were the case, then the final result of these sexual encounters, whatever initiated them, was a pregnancy. So, sex is "inextricably tied to reproduction."
I think this clarifies what I originally was trying to convey (and looking back, my writing fails to convey it): I did not mean to claim that sex always leads to babies, but that sex and reproduction are inevitably linked. Such a statement is almost a truism, but it seems our society is in denial.
Saying sex is not supposed to lead to pregnancy is like saying jumping out of a plane is not supposed to lead to splatting on the ground.
Which is why there is protection available for both.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
Well, that was sort of the point of my blog. Yes, there is protection for sex. Does that mean it is okay to throw caution to the wind, or should we treat sex as a serious matter? Even when there are parachutes on a plane, it would be dangerous to assume it would be impossible to die in the event of a crash.
I still think it has been time well spent. And I intend to continue spending my time engaged in fruitless pursuits.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Haha. I read all of the other comments before posting. Which may or may not have been a mistake.
I actually agree with you that sex has become a little too casual--I don't think anyone who has commented so far has tried to deny that. But maybe now they will, haha.
I'm not sure that I agree that the only purpose of sex is to create babies--I think that it's a way for husbands and wives to "know" each other (if I'm not mistaken, the Hebrew word for sex literally means "to know"). As you might have guessed from that last comment, however, I believe it should really be only between a husband and wife, because that's (supposed to be, anyway) a solid, lasting relationship in which truly knowing each other is totally justified--they're probably not going to break up and sleep with someone else in a few months. That's the general idea anyway. A husband and wife also would presumably be better equipped to take care of a child if it came to that (I'm not saying anything against single parents here, I'm just saying it's easier with two parents).
I think this was an excellently written blog and I'm so glad you posted it. In general your blogs tend to be really well-written and thought-out, and I enjoy reading them.
Thanks for reading. Looking back, this post was quite belligerent. I attempted to clarify what I meant in a few comments above, if you wanted to read them (not that you have too...). But yea, you got my one point.
True, people can have sex for a lot of reasons. But in the end, it's going to make someone pregnant if all goes according to plan. A married couple who wants to "know" each other will still probably become pregnant- so sex is ultimately tied to reproduction. The "knowing" was just a side effect that happened along the way.
I do think sex has become too casual as in the one-night-stand-drunken -night -in the- bar- can't -remember -what -exactly -happened?
However, infanticide does occur in other species besides homo sapiens. Hippos, bears, lions, and many types of primates intentially kill their newly born babies.
Newly dominant male hippos will kill newly born hippo babies in order to maintain his dominance . bears and primates sometimes kill their young because of stress
reasons are not always exactly known.