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.
There is this cool set of books our creator gave us. In it is one book called the Song of Solomon, you may like to read it at some point.
Sex was given to us, in this design of human for pleasure.
I agree that part of the function and the design, through selection, of evolution (there isn't actually a pre-plan with evolution; that's why there's also no "end result" or no "best" evolutionary stage) eventually produced many animals, including humans, that seek sex for the emotional pleasure and physical pleasure rather than purely from a reproductive drive. These did and do had/have a direct and very dramatic impact on the cooperation and survival of the given species.
I don't know how religion wound up in all this. Wrong board? I don't disrespect your beliefs but they do leave room for different interpretations than "a Creator." Just wanted to point that out.
Actually, sex is used by many species, including our own, for a lot of different reasons. These might be to keep the peace in society, to appease, to show dominance, to show loyalty, or to strengthen bonds between pairs or among a number of different members, as well as to relieve stress and ward off depression; sex is not, at least among mammals, necessarily for reproduction each and every time. And it never has been, as far as history and paleontology can tell.
Whether or not a Designer pointed His finger at the planet and zapped that into being so or not, it is so. And bonding is a tremendous drive among societies and between pair-bonding species.
We "use" sex for a lot of different reasons and some of them are emotional and/or societal.
What is it with people putting "actually" at the beginning of their posts responding to mine?
I never said reproduction was the only purpose, nor did I say that there were no other uses.
What is it with people putting "actually" at the beginning of their posts responding to mine?
I never said reproduction was the only purpose, nor did I say that there were no other uses.
Why get defensive? You said it's the "primary" reason for sex. It's the original reason for sex as far as science can tell but for many species including our own, other resultant factors of sex absolutely can be as important as the reproductive aspect.
If procreation was the Number One reason for sex among species like ours, if it were purely a biological result of that, and everything else were secondary, wouldn't all mammals self-regulate when they sensed overpopulation/overdensity, and seek/require less sex? After all, animals do a lot of other amazing things in response to the environment (for instance, fish or certain animals only growing large enough for the cages they're put in, whereas their "wild" cousins grow much larger; that too is an observable fact). Surely such a simple thing as a "downshift" response when it comes to sex and population would be a piece of cake, in light of examples like that one.
I didn't say you claimed other factors didn't have a role at all when it came to sex, but you did stress procreation as "the biggie" and I was pointing out that it is...but then again it isn't.
I DO however look down upon women who stupidly decide to have babies out of wedlock.
Oh. That would be me, the first time around. Thanks much, friend.
I don't think the word "stupid" could apply here as the urge for sex, for all its reasons, is as big in Rhodes scholars as it is among girls of the Projects of any major city.
I do look down upon women who have casual sex outside of a serious relationship. That doesn't mean I won't date them though.
I'm in the phase of my life where I'm just dating and having fun. I have slept with women on the 1st, 2nd or 3rd date. I would never consider any of these women for a serious relationship, though, because they were too "easy". But since I'm not looking for anything serious now, it's ok with me. It simply means spending on fewer expensive meals and gifts trying to get them in the sack.
I do look down upon women who have casual sex outside of a serious relationship. That doesn't mean I won't date them though.
I'm in the phase of my life where I'm just dating and having fun. I have slept with women on the 1st, 2nd or 3rd date. I would never consider any of these women for a serious relationship, though, because they were too "easy". But since I'm not looking for anything serious now, it's ok with me. It simply means spending on fewer expensive meals and gifts trying to get them in the sack.
I wouldn't look down on a woman just because she enjoys sex...Sex is normal, and healthy....
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.
Wrong board? I don't disrespect your beliefs but they do leave room for different interpretations than "a Creator." Just wanted to point that out.
