• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Purpose of Sex

vasuderatorrent

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Messages
6,112
Reaction score
987
Location
(none)
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
Note to moderators: This is a philosophical topic but I will only be slightly disappointed if you decide to move this to the Sex and Sexuality Forum.

What is the purpose of sex? The average person thinks of sex at least on a daily basis. Some people are consumed with sex on such a level that they may think of it hourly or even every waking moment. This seems like a massive waste of mental energy considering that the average person only procreates less than 3 times in their life and for many they never procreate. Those who never procreate still have to deal with the joys and aggravations associated with sex. If the purpose of sex is to procreate wouldn't those desires turn off at a much early age? Wouldn't those desires only occur once or twice a year? Wouldn't those desires go away after a reasonable accomplishment of procreative activity especially in females? The procreation argument really makes no sense. Surely sex has a biological purpose that exceeds procreation.

Some may say that sex is a source of entertainment that was necessary in times past before internet, television, radio or other technological advances used to entertain us every waking moment. This could be true but it seems that these technological advances just exacerbates our desire and our access to sex. This too may be a poor argument.

I do have a theory that merits discussion. Humans require a drive for sex to give humans the inclination to connect and build relationships with other humans for their own well being. This can explain statistical data that suggests married people are happier and also statistically live longer lives. Does this theory undermine sexually deviancies such as homosexuality, polygamy, serial monogamy or other types of promiscuous sexual behavior? Absolutely not. The human desire for sex is the desire to have a companion either permanently, temporarily or even momentarily. Two people stand a much better chance of survival in this world than one person roaming the world alone. I believe that the drive for sex has to be frequent and long living in our life to extend our drive to build strong friendships which increases our potential to survive.

Sexual thought engages our mind way too much in my opinion and most certainly deserves an explanation. Sexual relationships can sometimes be confusing and/or frustrating sometimes with married couples but most commonly with single persons on the pursuit. I am certain that in polygamous relationships the confusion and frustration would be even greater. This type of unnecessary frustration must have a biological explanation that makes sense.

Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
It's a biological drive to both serve the functions of procreation and social cohesiveness. We developed an emotional need as a matter of instinct.

If sex were purely for procreation then I would imagine we would be like most mammals and only care during times of fertility. That we care all the time suggest it has further utility.
 
Biologically, of course, the purpose of sex is to propagate a species, and to create genetic diversity.

In humans, of course, there is also another purpose. It serves to form an intimate emotional and spiritual bond between husband and wife.
 
Its purpose is whatever you want it to be, whatever it means to you.
 
hmm. I vote for terrific self indulgent and mutual enjoyment... and of course certain spiritual studies . Kama Sutra come to mind


Simplicity

Thom Paine
 
You're thinking way too much about it. When's the last time you got laid?

Note to moderators: This is a philosophical topic but I will only be slightly disappointed if you decide to move this to the Sex and Sexuality Forum.

What is the purpose of sex? The average person thinks of sex at least on a daily basis. Some people are consumed with sex on such a level that they may think of it hourly or even every waking moment. This seems like a massive waste of mental energy considering that the average person only procreates less than 3 times in their life and for many they never procreate. Those who never procreate still have to deal with the joys and aggravations associated with sex. If the purpose of sex is to procreate wouldn't those desires turn off at a much early age? Wouldn't those desires only occur once or twice a year? Wouldn't those desires go away after a reasonable accomplishment of procreative activity especially in females? The procreation argument really makes no sense. Surely sex has a biological purpose that exceeds procreation.

Some may say that sex is a source of entertainment that was necessary in times past before internet, television, radio or other technological advances used to entertain us every waking moment. This could be true but it seems that these technological advances just exacerbates our desire and our access to sex. This too may be a poor argument.

I do have a theory that merits discussion. Humans require a drive for sex to give humans the inclination to connect and build relationships with other humans for their own well being. This can explain statistical data that suggests married people are happier and also statistically live longer lives. Does this theory undermine sexually deviancies such as homosexuality, polygamy, serial monogamy or other types of promiscuous sexual behavior? Absolutely not. The human desire for sex is the desire to have a companion either permanently, temporarily or even momentarily. Two people stand a much better chance of survival in this world than one person roaming the world alone. I believe that the drive for sex has to be frequent and long living in our life to extend our drive to build strong friendships which increases our potential to survive.

Sexual thought engages our mind way too much in my opinion and most certainly deserves an explanation. Sexual relationships can sometimes be confusing and/or frustrating sometimes with married couples but most commonly with single persons on the pursuit. I am certain that in polygamous relationships the confusion and frustration would be even greater. This type of unnecessary frustration must have a biological explanation that makes sense.

Any thoughts?
 
You're thinking way too much about it. When's the last time you got laid?

I am in a 12 year marriage and have sex on average of about 2-3 times a week. To answer your question: Yesterday.

My wife and have probably had sex about 2,500 times and we only have two kids. We only used birth control the first 3 months of our marriage.

A long term sexual relationship can experience moments of sexual tension that causes loads of frustration. It seems like an unnecessary thing to deal with. I am searching for an explanation. That's what philosophy is. It's a search for answer.

I'm a thinker but thank you for your immature observation that has absolutely nothing with what is being discussed in this thread.
 
Last edited:
I am in a 12 year marriage and have sex on average of about 2-3 times a week. To answer your question: Yesterday.

My wife and have probably had sex about 2,500 times and we only have two kids. We only used birth control the first 3 months of our marriage.

A long term sexual relationship can experience moments of sexual tension that causes loads of frustration. It seems like an unnecessary thing to deal with. I am searching for an explanation. That's what philosophy is.

Don't get too used to it. Your days are numbered.
 
What kind of frustration?

I am in a 12 year marriage and have sex on average of about 2-3 times a week. To answer your question: Yesterday.

My wife and have probably had sex about 2,500 times and we only have two kids. We only used birth control the first 3 months of our marriage.

A long term sexual relationship can experience moments of sexual tension that causes loads of frustration. It seems like an unnecessary thing to deal with. I am searching for an explanation. That's what philosophy is.
 
What kind of frustration?

Making sexual advances and misreading the reaction of your partner. Desires for additional partners which is forbidden. Recognizing that my sexual advances outnumber my wife's sexual advances 500 to 1 really pisses me off when I think about it. She takes no risk at all and has all the sex she ever wants without taking any risks. Getting in the habit of having sex without having the physical energy to follow through. Being attracted to sexual images on television that are considered inappropriate. I'd be surprised to find a 16 year old male that has never been confused, overwhelmed, baffled, frustrated or angry towards sexual thoughts or situations that he experiences. How many times have you wanted to grab an ass or grab a handful of titties but had to refrain because the body parts belonged to a random stranger? I would say that happens to many men at least 100 times in a year.

Yes. Sex is frustrating, confusing and aggravating. It must have a clear biological explanation.
 
What is the purpose of sex?
As noted, mostly to reproduce, to form social bonds and so forth.


The average person thinks of sex at least on a daily basis. This seems like a massive waste of mental energy considering that the average person only procreates less than 3 times in their life and for many they never procreate....
I assure you, in the past it was a bit more frequent than 3 times.

At any rate, there really isn't any practical way to change it, that won't have unwanted consequences. E.g. long-term chemical castration can result in a variety of physical issues, and the emotional consequences on otherwise healthy individuals is not known.


If the purpose of sex is to procreate wouldn't those desires turn off at a much early age?
A man can reproduce at almost any time in his life. Menopausal and post-menopausal women can actually have a reduced sex drive. I'd really rather not go into specifics.


I do have a theory that merits discussion. Humans require a drive for sex to give humans the inclination to connect and build relationships with other humans for their own well being.
Yes, that's very likely part of it. IIRC we have observed such behavior in our primate cousins, most notoriously in bonobos.


Sexual thought engages our mind way too much in my opinion and most certainly deserves an explanation.
I'm pretty sure an explanation isn't going to stop anyone from thinking about sex. ;)

At any rate, there's basically no way to get rid of it. Just enjoy it while you can.
 
Biologically, of course, the purpose of sex is to propagate a species, and to create genetic diversity.

In humans, of course, there is also another purpose. It serves to form an intimate emotional and spiritual bond between husband and wife.

Sex can form an intimate emotional and spiritual bond for couples that are not husband and wife. In fact, reality shows us that this happens all the time and MAY lead to marriage... but doesn't have to. Marriage is pretty irrelevant to sex. Look at lots of married couples.
 
Hmm. I don't know about anger. That sounds a little problematic. Maybe your frustration is with monogamy, not sex. Have you tried a little variety? A little doggy with an ass slap or two usually gets no complaints and can add some good sexual tension. Be a little dangerous.


Making sexual advances and misreading the reaction of your partner. Desires for additional partners which is forbidden. Recognizing that my sexual advances outnumber my wife's sexual advances 500 to 1 really pisses me off when I think about it. She takes no risk at all and has all the sex she ever wants without taking any risks. Getting in the habit of having sex without having the physical energy to follow through. Being attracted to sexual images on television that are considered inappropriate. I'd be surprised to find a 16 year old male that has never been confused, overwhelmed, baffled, frustrated or angry towards sexual thoughts or situations that he experiences. How many times have you wanted to grab an ass or grab a handful of titties but had to refrain because the body parts belonged to a random stranger? I would say that happens to many men at least 100 times in a year.

Yes. Sex is frustrating, confusing and aggravating. It must have a clear biological explanation.
 
Sex can form an intimate emotional and spiritual bond for couples that are not husband and wife. In fact, reality shows us that this happens all the time and MAY lead to marriage... but doesn't have to.

I tried to demonstrate in the opening post how sexual deviancies such as serial monogamy, polygamy, homosexuality or promiscuous behavior should not alter the answer(s) on the purpose of sex. Marriage is just the more frequent survival pattern of sexually active humans. I'll accept Bob Blaylock's comments as neutral even though he referred to the most common type of sexual relationship. He could have been asserting a religious claim such as God made sex for a husband and his wife to enjoy in the Holy Matrimony ordained by God thus it is good. That could have been his intention but the hint was so subtle I chose to forgive it.

Did his comment rub you the wrong way?
 
Hmm. I don't know about anger. That sounds a little problematic. Maybe your frustration is with monogamy, not sex. Have you tried a little variety? A little doggy with an ass slap or two usually gets no complaints and can add some good sexual tension. Be a little dangerous.

This is a philosophical discussion. This isn't the Self Help and Advice thread. This isn't the Sex and Sexuality thread. I'll be a little bit sad if you get my thread moved because of your serious immaturity regarding this matter.
 
I tried to demonstrate in the opening post how sexual deviancies such as serial monogamy, polygamy, homosexuality or promiscuous behavior should not alter the answer(s) on the purpose of sex. Marriage is just the more frequent survival pattern of sexually active humans. I'll accept Bob Blaylock's comments as neutral even though he referred to the most common type of sexual relationship. He could have been asserting a religious claim such as God made sex for a husband and his wife to enjoy in the Holy Matrimony ordained by God thus it is good. That could have been his intention but the hint was so subtle I chose to forgive it.

Did his comment rub you the wrong way?

I am quite aware of all of Bob's motivations when he posts. What he meant to say was that the ONLY reasons for sex are for procreation or for a man and woman in marriage. All other forms of sex are deviant and are not a purpose. Bob, of course, is wrong. Pair bonding and emotional connections venture beyond a male-female marriage. That particular reality really bothers Bob.
 
Who's joking? Maybe you can talk about the philosophy of sex with your wife. I'm sure she'll love it. If you're uptight about having fun with a woman then maybe you should try men.


This is a philosophical discussion. This isn't the Self Help and Advice thread. This isn't the Sex and Sexuality thread. I'll be a little bit sad if you get my thread moved because of your serious immaturity regarding this matter. If you don't know how to discuss it just butt out.

Save your jokes for your South Park buddies.
 
Your little crusades against people are annoying. If you want to talk about other people all the time, maybe you should try a different forum. Try posting without mentioning another poster.

I am quite aware of all of Bob's motivations when he posts. What he meant to say was that the ONLY reasons for sex are for procreation or for a man and woman in marriage. All other forms of sex are deviant and are not a purpose. Bob, of course, is wrong. Pair bonding and emotional connections venture beyond a male-female marriage. That particular reality really bothers Bob.
 
Your little crusades against people are annoying. If you want to talk about other people all the time, maybe you should try a different forum. Try posting without mentioning another poster.

vasuderatorrent asked me a question and I answered it. If you don't like that there are plenty of other threads where you can post.
 
This is nothing but cheap speculation, I admit. But wouldn't creatures who had a great natural propensity for mating tend to do more of it? And on average, wouldn't the result be, over time, a preponderance of offspring that shared this propensity for mating? In time, wouldn't you expect to see a lot of organisms that expended a lot of energy in trying to couple with each other?

Here's some food for thought. What's the evolutionary advantage of making sex feel good? Why wouldn't it work just as well for people to have a propensity for having sex that didn't feel good? If there were some evolutionary advantage in moving certain muscles in a certain way, as happens in the case of tics and tremors, the tic or tremor would get the job done just as well without being accompanied by orgasms.

Put another way, why wouldn't it work just as well if the urge to mate carried no great subjective reward with it? There are compulsive people who will wash their hands or flick a light switch dozens of times each day, even though they don't seem to experience any ecstatic pleasure from those behaviors. Why, biologically speaking, would a propensity for having an irresistible urge to mate--like a compulsion, without pleasure--not be as likely to be selected for as an equally strong propensity to mate that was accompanied by very pleasurable sensations?

I'm sure only a perverted mind like mine would think about these things, but they don't add up somehow.
 
Last edited:
...
What is the purpose of sex? The average person thinks of sex at least on a daily basis. Some people are consumed with sex on such a level that they may think of it hourly or even every waking moment. This seems like a massive waste of mental energy considering that the average person only procreates less than 3 times in their life and for many they never procreate. Those who never procreate still have to deal with the joys and aggravations associated with sex. If the purpose of sex is to procreate wouldn't those desires turn off at a much early age? Wouldn't those desires only occur once or twice a year? Wouldn't those desires go away after a reasonable accomplishment of procreative activity especially in females? The procreation argument really makes no sense. Surely sex has a biological purpose that exceeds procreation.

Some may say that sex is a source of entertainment that was necessary in times past before internet, television, radio or other technological advances used to entertain us every waking moment. This could be true but it seems that these technological advances just exacerbates our desire and our access to sex. This too may be a poor argument.

I do have a theory that merits discussion. Humans require a drive for sex to give humans the inclination to connect and build relationships with other humans for their own well being. This can explain statistical data that suggests married people are happier and also statistically live longer lives. Does this theory undermine sexually deviancies such as homosexuality, polygamy, serial monogamy or other types of promiscuous sexual behavior? Absolutely not. The human desire for sex is the desire to have a companion either permanently, temporarily or even momentarily. Two people stand a much better chance of survival in this world than one person roaming the world alone. I believe that the drive for sex has to be frequent and long living in our life to extend our drive to build strong friendships which increases our potential to survive.

Sexual thought engages our mind way too much in my opinion and most certainly deserves an explanation. Sexual relationships can sometimes be confusing and/or frustrating sometimes with married couples but most commonly with single persons on the pursuit. I am certain that in polygamous relationships the confusion and frustration would be even greater. This type of unnecessary frustration must have a biological explanation that makes sense.

Any thoughts?

Making sexual advances and misreading the reaction of your partner. Desires for additional partners which is forbidden. Recognizing that my sexual advances outnumber my wife's sexual advances 500 to 1 really pisses me off when I think about it. She takes no risk at all and has all the sex she ever wants without taking any risks. Getting in the habit of having sex without having the physical energy to follow through. Being attracted to sexual images on television that are considered inappropriate. I'd be surprised to find a 16 year old male that has never been confused, overwhelmed, baffled, frustrated or angry towards sexual thoughts or situations that he experiences. How many times have you wanted to grab an ass or grab a handful of titties but had to refrain because the body parts belonged to a random stranger? I would say that happens to many men at least 100 times in a year.

Yes. Sex is frustrating, confusing and aggravating. It must have a clear biological explanation.

I tried to demonstrate in the opening post how sexual deviancies such as serial monogamy, polygamy, homosexuality or promiscuous behavior should not alter the answer(s) on the purpose of sex. Marriage is just the more frequent survival pattern of sexually active humans. ...

What you're missing here isn't philosophical - but scientific: Sex feels good most of the time.

Not just a physical sensation (pleasant contact of skin on skin) but chemically.

Sex alters your body's chemistry. Dopamine, testosterone, estrogen, oxytocin, and various other hormones and chemicals are triggered, released, and flood our bodies in ways that have both immediate and long lasting results. Kill pain - ease stress.

Orgasms are dope. Sex is candy. Human contact is fuel. Not even a joke - that's how the average human body is designed to respond to sexual activity.

Why?

To make it more appealing. The reality is that sex: can be painful - more so for women than men. Can be messy. Can have dire consequences such as unplanned pregnancy, infection, disease, and various disorders that create complications. Can be difficult to obtain.

If the average male experienced pain upon ejaculation - very few would engage in the act.

Women have a greater chance of painful intercourse and extreme difficulties than men - and it shows as they age. The average female tends to lose interest as she gets older. The body stops responding quite so positively - yes - her hormonally driven days of having the urge to procreate ARE numbered. For men, it's numbered too - but the end comes much later.

Women have other issues that men don't deal with quite as much: it's very common for women NOT to orgasm during sex. Some never do - at all - ever. So for women, nature's still geared us toward sex even if it doesn't culminate in the ultimate pleasure by still providing positives: physical contact, intimacy, closeness, appreciation, security. A lot of women will say "it's okay if I don't orgasm - I still enjoyed being with him"

However, a lot of men really do NOT like having sex and not having an orgasm. Some men get depressed, experience anxiety and have emotional breakdowns when they can't orgasm or sustain an erection. To them it might be seen as a sign of overall failure as a man.
But it's still basal - very instinctual. Your body's system does NOT know: of all the many times you've entered into pregnancy - X number of children were born, X number of children grew up and X number of children went on to create XX number of children. Your body only knows: You must have sex. Men must ejaculate.

In part - these different reactions are because of the different hormones and chemicals released for men and women during sex and after orgasm.

A small percentage of people have little to no sex drive - somewhere in all their inner workings something is off kilter.

Either way: one thing is for certain - the instinctive urge to have sex is not tied to *sexuality* - only the physical response the body has *to* sex.

And if just thinking about something can generate 'feel good' chemicals - I hardly see that as a waste of time or energy. More so, it's a damned good investment that truly takes little effort and can keep you on your toes.

--

If you're really puzzled over why we like sex so much then you might as well as other questions like: why do women have breasts, why do men have testicles?

Regardless of how advanced we are intellectually - we're still animals. You can philosophize and theorize all you want but the answers are Mother Nature's calling card.
 
Last edited:
Its not perversion its biology. Individuals that try to create as many offspring as possible will be selected. Those that don't will be selected against. Its why males are naturally promiscuous. Pleasurable reproduction is adaptive for both males and females.

This is nothing but cheap speculation, I admit. But wouldn't creatures who had a great natural propensity for mating tend to do more of it? And on average, wouldn't the result be, over time, a preponderance of offspring that shared this propensity for mating? In time, wouldn't you expect to see a lot of organisms that expended a lot of energy in trying to couple with each other?

Here's some food for thought. What's the evolutionary advantage of making sex feel good? Why wouldn't it work just as well for people to have a propensity for having sex that didn't feel good? If there were some evolutionary advantage in moving certain muscles in a certain way, as happens in the case of tics and tremors, the tic or tremor would get the job done just as well without being accompanied by orgasms.

Put another way, why wouldn't it work just as well if the urge to mate carried no great subjective reward with it? There are compulsive people who will wash their hands or flick a light switch dozens of times each day, even though they don't seem to experience any ecstatic pleasure from those behaviors. Why, biologically speaking, would a propensity for having an irresistible urge to mate--like a compulsion, without pleasure--not be as likely to be selected for as an equally strong propensity to mate that was accompanied by very pleasurable sensations?

I'm sure only a perverted mind like mine would think about these things, but they don't add up somehow.
 
Biologically speaking? Reproduction.

As otherwise noted, however, it also serves a secondary role related to social bonding and intimacy.
 
There is no inherent purpose. It's a pet peeve of mine when people try to project their own intentionality onto a mindless thing like evolution. Nature/evolution doesn't intend us to procreate. Nature/evolution doesn't care at all whether you procreate or if every living organism stopped procreating and died out. It makes absolutely no difference to evolution. Nature don't give a ****. :mrgreen:

Evolution simply explains how it came to be that organisms that feel a desire to reproduce are common today. That's it. The purpose of you having sex, the purpose of anything you do, is up to you. Why do you want to have sex. What purpose does it serve to you. Those are the questions you should be asking. Nature has no opinion on the matter whatsoever.
 
Back
Top Bottom