Why pleasure ? Why sex ?

[wayfaring man]

What do you think ?

Is sex primarily for the sake of pleasure ?

Or is that pleasure primarily for the sake of sex ?

I think , the latter .

How about you ?

 

[waterbear]

That pleasure is primarily for the sake of sex seems a bit of an evolutionist view of things... and incomplete even then since other elements (e.g. child rearing, eating, etc.) are involved in the evolutionary-reproduction centric processes.

 

[wayfaring man]

I don't equate it with evolutionary processes as much as " Creator instilled instinct ".

28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis Ch . 1

wm

 

[waterbear]

Even then tho, to "be fruitful and multiply" will require that one keep oneself alive - which involves eating, seeking shelter and various other forms of comforts - which induce pleasure no? Additionally, pleasure solely for the purpose of sex would not take into account childrearing - and there is pleasure involved with that.

I don't disagree that the pleasure associated with sex is not reprodutive in intent, but sexual pleasure isn't the only pleasure... and only one of many factors in reproduction. Consequently, I can't agree that pleasure is primarily for the sake of sex... tho I might agree with pleasure being premarily for the sake of "be fruitful and multiple."

 

[wayfaring man]

Even then tho, to "be fruitful and multiply" will require that one keep oneself alive - which involves eating, seeking shelter and various other forms of comforts - which induce pleasure no? Additionally, pleasure solely for the purpose of sex would not take into account childrearing - and there is pleasure involved with that.

I don't disagree that the pleasure associated with sex is not reprodutive in intent, but sexual pleasure isn't the only pleasure... and only one of many factors in reproduction. Consequently, I can't agree that pleasure is primarily for the sake of sex... tho I might agree with pleasure being premarily for the sake of "be fruitful and multiple."

Dear waterbear ,

Please note that I denoted in the OP " that pleasure " - meaning sexual pleasure ... for it stood out in my mind , as well , that there exists many other forms of pleasure .

Also , that sex normally leads to pregnancy & child bearing & child rearing is a " given " in my manner of association . It has only been recently that these things have begun to be disassociated , and my perspectives are not based primarily on the current status quo ... Don't you know ?

wm

 

[waterbear]

Sexual pleasure does exist for the intent of "being fruitlful and multiplying." - tho I might argue it exists for bonding reasons too.

Bonding reasons are why the two have come to be disassociated with each other - that sexual pleasure is appropriate in context. Unfortunately, sexual pleasure can exist out of context, which leads to pregnancy not wanted, child bearing not wanted, and child rearing not loving.

 

[wayfaring man]

Sexual pleasure does exist for the intent of "being fruitlful and multiplying." - tho I might argue it exists for bonding reasons too.

Bonding reasons are why the two have come to be disassociated with each other - that sexual pleasure is appropriate in context. Unfortunately, sexual pleasure can exist out of context, which leads to pregnancy not wanted, child bearing not wanted, and child rearing not loving.

Yea ,

With Great Gifts come Great Responsibilities and Great Accountability .

( Sometimes less is better )

wm

 

[P4g4nite]

That pleasure is primarily for the sake of sex seems a bit of an evolutionist view of things

I am certain you have been told at some stage that evolution is not a religion or a belief system. Are you trying to say "evolutionists" don't have sex for pleasure?
The pleasure reward you get with sex is not just a nice byproduct.

***The facts***
*sex is a method of reproduction for many animals.
*sex is also important ingrediant in a "romantic" relationship, even when is is not intended to produce offspring, it links feeling good physically with a deeper emotional tie between the two (approx) people, like a foot massage that you get something out of too.
*It is emotionally healthy to have sex for the pleasure of it, how much is up to the person.

Interestingly, dolphins have also been known to have non-reproductive intended sex. (I would have said sex for pleasure but it sounded to weird when you're talking about dolphins)

 

[waterbear]

I am certain you have been told at some stage that evolution is not a religion or a belief system. Are you trying to say "evolutionists" don't have sex for pleasure?
The pleasure reward you get with sex is not just a nice byproduct.

***The facts***
*sex is a method of reproduction for many animals.
*sex is also important ingrediant in a "romantic" relationship, even when is is not intended to produce offspring, it links feeling good physically with a deeper emotional tie between the two (approx) people, like a foot massage that you get something out of too.
*It is emotionally healthy to have sex for the pleasure of it, how much is up to the person.

Interestingly, dolphins have also been known to have non-reproductive intended sex. (I would have said sex for pleasure but it sounded to weird when you're talking about dolphins)

Comments:
From an evolutionary standpoint, pleasure serves some purpose of surivial. Thus to say that pleasure exists because of sex is to say that we experience pleasure during the reproduction act because it is evolutionarily advantageous todo so. It's not necessarily a belief system, but simply a way of looking at "pleasure exists for the purpose of sex"

Incidently, I believe this thread has come to the conclusions you just mentioned...
Sex serves the purpose of reproduction
Sex serves the purpose of bonding
Sex serves these purposes in some greater context

 

[Ryal Kane]

Creatures in which sex is more pleasurable have more sex = more procration = shift the gene pool towards greater sexual pleasure.

As always with evolution there are numerous other factors involved. If sex was too enjoyable, animals might starve to death or nevr tend to their young. It's difficult to gauge 'pleasure' in the animal kingdom. Male praying mantis's get their head bitten off. Some male shrews literally die of exhaustion after mating.

Ryal Kane

 

[Norseman]

Even then tho, to "be fruitful and multiply" will require that one keep oneself alive - which involves eating, seeking shelter and various other forms of comforts - which induce pleasure no? Additionally, pleasure solely for the purpose of sex would not take into account childrearing - and there is pleasure involved with that.

I don't disagree that the pleasure associated with sex is not reprodutive in intent, but sexual pleasure isn't the only pleasure... and only one of many factors in reproduction. Consequently, I can't agree that pleasure is primarily for the sake of sex... tho I might agree with pleasure being premarily for the sake of "be fruitful and multiple."

No, if you don't get those necessities, you experience displeasure. Pleasure is still involved.

 

[challenger]

Some male shrews literally die of exhaustion after mating.

Lucky, furry lil' gits

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

I heartily recommend Why is Sex Fun?: The Evolution of Human Sexuality http://tinyurl.com/22qhx by Jared M. Diamond. It's a fun (and informative) read.

Be well!

ssv

 

[truthnluv]

What do you think ?

Is sex primarily for the sake of pleasure ?

Or is that pleasure primarily for the sake of sex ?

I think , the latter .

How about you ?

Interesting question, wayfaring man.

God gave us taste buds that bring us pleasure. He did not have to do this. God gave us nerve endings that that bring us pleasure. He did not have to do this either. He could have given us instincts that caused humans to mate like "dogs in heat" once a year. At God's right hand there are pleasures for evermore(Ps.16:11). I'm just pointing out that God is not somehow against us enjoying the pleasures He has given us in the proper context.

Sex itself is a reaffirmation of the One-ness of male and female ORIGINALLY(Adam and Eve). This is why becoming one flesh(sex) constitutes a marriage alone. Notice Adam's words:

"Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man He made into a woman and He brought her to the man.

And Adam said: This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man.

THEREFORE, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."Gen.2:22-24 What is that therefore there for(smile)? Therefore points back to his first statement and it is the reason for the second statement. He is declaring what will constitute a marriage(v.24) and why(v.23).

So, sex is a reaffirmation of the Oneness of male and female. It is God's divine way of permanently joining a male to an unattached female.

The woman was given to man as a gift, a treasure to be cherished, an asset of great use to him, a complement, and He gave us special nerve endings because sex is supposed to be enjoyed. It's a gift.

Sex between a married couple is to be engaged in on a regular basis. Not to produce children, but to satisfy your sexual desires that you might not be tempted or burn with passion(1Cor.7:2-9).

The command to be fruitful and multiply was given to Adam and Eve and it was fufilled(Gen.6). This command was given again to Noah and his son's(Gen.9:1). Since then I believe this has been fufilled to say the least. I think Moses agreed that the whole earth was populated even at the time he wrote Genesis as well(Gen.9:19)

So, having children is optional. Have as many as you like or none if you like.

truthnluv

 

[wayfaring man]

In a slightly different take - What if sex were quite painful consistently for both parties ?

Would we have become extinct by now ?

Surely , overpopulation would not be likely to be an issue .

Nor " birth control " or abortion .

For if " it " didn't " feel good " , a lot less of us would engage .

wm

 

[wayfaring man]

truthnluv ,

Appreciate the well - constructed reply .

I'm largely agreeable with what you said .

wm

 

[Salsa_1960]

So, if a husband and wife are unable to have children, does that mean they should stop having sex since it serves no purpose?

 

[wayfaring man]

So, if a husband and wife are unable to have children, does that mean they should stop having sex since it serves no purpose?

Hi sandy ,

I don't think that's necessarily the case ; but it's something certainly worth seeking to know God's will regarding .

Surely the greatest justification for having sex is procreation / survival of the species , in a loving and nurturing environment , with devotion .

Other's have mentioned , for the sake of bonding husband and wife , to rejoin the male / female in " oneness " , for enjoyment ( in the proper context) , to satisfy desire / keep from burning with passion .

In a perfect world one may theorize that one sperm would fertilize one egg only when reasonably desired ; but in a " Perfect World " no one would die so our survival would not be at stake , so the greatest need for reproduction would be absent , so there would be no need for marriage and sex .


"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." <---> Matthew 22 : 30


We are also warned about not refusing your mate , or being over-indulgent .

" The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5: Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
6: But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

<-----> 1st Corinthians 7 :4-6

wm

 

[Salsa_1960]

Actually, I have 3 kids of my own. My parents, however, were unable to have children and both my sister and I were adopted. I was only trying to make the point that there are more reasons to have sex than having children.

 

[Sopharos]

Sex doesn't just serve the purpose of reproducing. Dolphins, chimps and dogs also engage in "social sex", often homosexual in nature. Here, the intercourse is not intended for the impregnating of the female for the procreation of another individual of the species, but to strengthen social bond within a defined social boundry.

The pleasure in human sex is neccessary because the menstrual cycles in human females are hidden from view of the males. Females of certain species of primates signal their fertility to the males through the use of powerful pheromones in the urine or physical signals like the blushing of the anal area. Human females do not possess this, and her fertility is kept hidden inside her body, leaving the males guessing at when to mate to maximize the chance of impregnating the female.

One way to maximize the chance of winning this reproductive lottery is to mate repeatedly. The pleasure in sex for males is to ensure that the male are kept interested in mating with the female many times over, increasing his chance of mating at "that right moment" to successfully impregnate the female. Pleasure in sex for males is one part of this mechanism. Pleasure in sex for the females is to ensure that the female would also be willing to mate with the male repeatedly.

But to me, love is an entirely different thing altogether. Sex is physical, love is emotional. Love can enhance sex, but sex does not neccessarily enhance love. Therefore to me, it doesn't matter if a couple can't have children together, its that they love each other that matters. Any couple who get married for the sole purpose of having children is doomed from start to finish. For humans, there are many, many factors other than fertility which contribute to the reproductive fitness of a couple, and there are also many, many more purposes of sex amongst humans than just reproducing.