Amos

Dogma? So you think fertility clinics just teach us how to have sex? An increase in infertility, homosexuality, family violence, a decrease in parental capacity, child abuse and also a change in the boy/girl birth ratio was predictable from the beginning of our modern gender society (which is just opposite to the "opposite sex society" it replaced.

Remember when the first homosexuals came out of the closet? As it looks today nearly half the house must have been closet space. Is it maybe true that the modern gender society has neutered both sexes into one sterile group that is either not capable or not willing reproduce itself?

Of course, there are lots of reason why children are not wanted, or not wanted 'just yet,' or why sex is good, either with or without emotion, as if we can turn our emotion on or off to justify our actions.

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

luvluv

Clutch:

Exhibit A:

Tronvillian says:

This seems to me to indicate that at least one poster here takes it that the primary purpose of sexual intercourse is pleasure. From a scientific standpoint, I think it would be much easier to argue that the primary purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction. Note that I am not here to argue that sex should be confined to reproduction, I think it can and should be enjoyed for fun and intimacy. However, I am asking if such a view as tronvillian's is not dangerously unbalanced even from an atheistic standpoint?

Amen-Moses

Which of the following three uses of a penis is "primary"?

1) To piss through.

2) To provide pleasure to the organism it belongs to.

3) To impregnate another of the same species for procreation.

Please elucidate as to why your choice is primary over the others.

Amen-Moses

Amos

One and three because only these two are maintained if man was not a rational animal.

Number two only exist because of our conscious mind in which we remember that it felt good. Kind of as in "good and evil" with sex being knowledge of good and that we would die being knowledge of bad.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

luvluv

Amen-moses, three for the obvious reason that one does not need a penis to urinate (girls do it too, ya know) and nature is not in the business of giving organisms means of pleasuring themselves with no evolutionary purpose. It's pretty evident that the pleasure of sexuality evolved because it increases the chances of procreation. The pleasure serves the function.

If sex had no procreative purpose, if we reproduced asexually in other words, yet had sex organs, what exactly would be the advantage of having sexual organs? Why would natural selection retain such a development? And why don't we see organisms with huge pleasure centers that are totally seperate from any procreative capacity? Seeking and acquiring sexual gratification solely for pleasure would be an extroidinary waste of resources for an organism if it did not lead to procreation. There would be no advantage at all, and perhaps a decided disadvantate, for the expended energy in finding a suitable partner and the energy expended in the sexual act, if the only goal of that act was pleasure. It would be the equivalent of having a creature born with an genetic addiction for cocaine. You would spend endless amounts of energy and resources seeking a high that was totally unnecessary biolgically.

If pleasure is the primary purpose, then on those grounds procreation would be tangential and supplementary. How does procreation increase or give aid to the physical pleasure of the sex act?

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Amen-Moses

I'll remember to tell that to the next dog that shags my leg.

Amen-Moses

Amos

Yes I know what you mean, people should never teach dogs to do that.

Amen-Moses

I wasn't arguing that pleasure was the primary purpose of a penis just that it has a few purposes one of which (procreation) is extremely rare. In fact in a normal mammalian lifetime it only get's used for procreation once or twice a year whereas the other two purposes are far more frequently employed.

Strangely enough the reason men piss through their penises is entirely due to female anatomy, the fetus starts off with female genital structure which then has to alter during development in the womb into a sperm delivery tube but ends up taking the urethra along for the ride.

I assume that as the primary purpose of the genitals is procreation I take it you have no problems with the removal of that purposeless little bit of skin called the clitoris?

Amen-Moses

Corona688

You think infertility is a 21st century invention? I'd greatly like to see your references on this. We now have the scientific and intellectual machinery to try and understand WHY it happens now, though, and possibly treat it.

Numbers and references, please?

References! References! References! If you cannot back up your assertions, then they are nothing more than that.

Um... sounds sort of like typical 'the family's under siege' claptrap surrounded by typical Victorian-age sex bashing, there's no way to be certain...

In any case, you've once again tried to derail an interesting topic with your baseless assertions that excessive sex in the 21st century is causing infertility. If you want to discuss this, make a new topic; I'd -love- to see you get confronted with facts on this once and for all. But for now, could you please try and stay to the topic?

luvluv

Amen-Moses:

In general, I'd have a problem with anyone forcing anyone to do anything with their body that they didn't want to do. If a woman wanted to remove her own clitoris of her own free will, I'd advise her against it but it wouldn't be my decision. I would however be against anyone forcing that decision on her.

I'm not sure what the point of this question is, other than to cast me as a bad guy or something.