Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why? The simple fact that contraceptives are so widely used is evidence that your opinion that any sex without the goal of reproduction is unnatural is not an opinion widely shared. I don't think that people using contraceptives think that their sexual behavior is unnatural.
I am not sure why you think people's actions are evidence of NATURES intention.
Simply because people believe it doesn't mean it has any impact on their lives. As I indicated before I believe it but it doesnt alter my actions.
No, DC is arguing that sex engaged in for reasons besides reproduction is natural. And I've supported my argument. All you can do is repeat your mantra, sex is for reproduction, sex is for reproduction, sex is for reproduction. And in doing so, you ignore the numerous social constructs that sexual behavior support. Social constructs on the surface may seem artificial, but the human behavior of creating social constructs is a natural human behavior. Therefore, sex used in social constructs is a natural human behavior. And nature has made sex pleasurable for humans, very pleasurable actually, so sex for pleasure is also perfectly natural. And so say the majority of people, not your "theological" (was that an attempt to avoid "religious" on your part?) minority.
Your quite wrong, eveloution has no interest in social constructs. They clearly are man made and have no evolutionary grounding. You continue you make claims you can't support.
Who denies sex is engaged in for other reasons? They simply aren't reasons dictated by evolution.
I am not sure why you think people's actions are evidence of NATURES intention.
Because "manmade" or not, people are part of nature, and therefore technically, the mindset of sex for reasons other than procreation can be seen as an evolutionary construct, especially with the advent of birth control.
I am not sure why you think people's actions are evidence of NATURES intention.
Simply because people believe it doesn't mean it has any impact on their lives. As I indicated before I believe it but it doesnt alter my actions.
No, baby. YOU said your opinion was mainstream. It's not. That's what my statement about contraceptives was all about. YOUR opinion is not mainstream. People don't believe that sex not for reproduction is unnatural. They believe that sex for pleasure is natural. So your OPINION is not mainstream, it's radical.
Because "manmade" or not, people are part of nature, and therefore technically, the mindset of sex for reasons other than procreation can be seen as an evolutionary construct, especially with the advent of birth control.
Are "people a part of nature", or is nature what exists outside of the world of man?
Your quite wrong, eveloution has no interest in social constructs. They clearly are man made and have no evolutionary grounding. You continue you make claims you can't support.
Who denies sex is engaged in for oyhr reasons? They simply aren't reasons dictated by evolution.
Evolution has great interest in social constructs. Humans are social animals. Their success is largely based on social constructs. Our social nature is part of our evolution.
Because "manmade" or not, people are part of nature, and therefore technically, the mindset of sex for reasons other than procreation can be seen as an evolutionary construct, especially with the advent of birth control.
Your quite wrong, eveloution has no interest in social constructs. They clearly are man made and have no evolutionary grounding. You continue you make claims you can't support.
Who denies sex is engaged in for other reasons? They simply aren't reasons dictated by evolution.
If "evolution has no interest in social constructs" then why have bees evolved they way they have? Why is it that only 1 out of 50,000 females bees in a hive is capable of reproduction despite the fact that all 50,000 females are genetically identical?
Evolution has great interest in social constructs. Humans are social animals. Their success is largely based on social constructs. Our social nature is part of our evolution.
Non sense evolution cares only about moving the species forward. There are all sorts of people with all sorts of social issues who glide brought evolution.
Non sense evolution cares only about moving the species forward. There are all sorts of people with all sorts of social issues who glide brought evolution.
So you're claiming their are no social constructs that help move a species forward?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
