The Purpose of Sex

rhinefire said:

Remove the erotica and sex is for procreation of billions of species and nothing more.

Click to expand...

Then why don't I have 2,500 children? Your argument is flawed if you are considering the human species.

Nilly said:

The only reason is procreation.

Evolution has caused sex to be enjoyable on a chemical and physical level, which has caused humans to attribute all these other reasons (social bonding, power, fun) to sex. There's nothing wrong with attributing our own purposes to things we experience, but the only objective reason per se is procreation. All others are subjective/secondary, tricked onto us by evolution (a great trick, but a trick nontheless).

Click to expand...

:failpail: There are other species that only copulate during fertile times and would never even think of doing it at any other time. These are species that are much more productive with their procreation efforts than humans will ever be. I firmly disagree with your observation. Otherwise I would have a lot more children than 2. I haven't used birth control in 12 years.

vasuderatorrent said:

:failpail: There are other species that only copulate during fertile times and would never even think of doing it at any other time. These are species that are much more productive with their procreation efforts than humans will ever be. I firmly disagree with your observation. Otherwise I would have a lot more children than 2. I haven't used birth control in 12 years.

Click to expand...

Of course you can have sex without meaning to reproduce, but that's mainly because it's a fun social thing to do. Why is sex a fun and social thing to do? It's a nudge by evolution in order to get us to procreate. If sex wasn't for procreation, then we wouldn't have evolved to find it great. Why is putting your finger in somebody elses ear not a fun sociable thing to do? Because there is no underlying purpose for us to evolve to find it fun.

We've evolved to like sugar because it gives us energy. Sugar may make cakes and tea taste nice, but that's not its underlying purpose.
We've evolved to like sex because it gives us kids. Sex may feel great and help social develop bonds but that's not it's underlying purpose. These other reasons are there 'because' of its primary function. Procreation.

I want to add that I am an advocate of fun sex, I just think you have to call a spade a spade and acknowledge that evolutions 'goal' is self preservation of self and species. Not emotional wellbeing (although they often align emotional well being is used to achieve its goal).

Nilly said:

The only reason is procreation.

Evolution has caused sex to be enjoyable on a chemical and physical level, which has caused humans to attribute all these other reasons (social bonding, power, fun) to sex. There's nothing wrong with attributing our own purposes to things we experience, but the only objective reason per se is procreation. All others are subjective/secondary, tricked onto us by evolution (a great trick, but a trick nontheless).

Click to expand...

Well, nature designed us to go years at a time being reproductivly sterile, and yet have high amounts of sex while sterile. Doesn't seem too productive towards procreation to me.

Furthermore, finding it great has nothing to do with it. Most less social creatures are still driven to do it for mating, even though they don't get as much pleasure from it. There's no reason why we have to find it great if the only purpose is breeding.

People have such a simplistic understanding of evolution. People who don't understand it at all seem to think everything is directly tired to more babies no matter what the circumstances, and there's some kind of plan.

Firstly, evolution is mindless. There's no plan, and sometimes it doesn't even make logical sense.

Second, more babies is not always good evolutionarily. That's why every species has ways of limiting reproduction, and some reproduce very little - including humans. Reproduction always has a survival cost, so every species has ways of bringing it down when they think the cost is to high.

We do things for reasons that make sense to or own survival, and develop accordingly, whether it fits into some simple narrative or not.

Humans have the most success as social creatures with relatively low reproduction rates. The cost of doing anything else is just too high.

So roughly 90 percent of the time, we have sex for social reasons, actively avoiding babies. And we are physically built to avoid babies as well, under natural conditions. This doesn't work quite as well with a fat filled agricultural diet, however, and we spent centuries trying to fix that technologically and bring ourselves back to or state of nature: near constant sterility and sex for social reasons.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Well, nature designed us to go years at a time being reproductivly sterile, and yet have high amounts of sex while sterile. Doesn't seem too productive towards procreation to me.

Furthermore, finding it great has nothing to do with it. Most less social creatures are still driven to do it for mating, even though they don't get as much pleasure from it. There's no reason why we have to find it great if the only purpose is breeding.

People have such a simplistic understanding of evolution. People who don't understand it at all seem to think everything is directly tired to more babies no matter what the circumstances, and there's some kind of plan.

Firstly, evolution is mindless. There's no plan, and sometimes it doesn't even make logical sense.

Second, more babies is not always good evolutionarily. That's why every species has ways of limiting reproduction, and some reproduce very little - including humans. Reproduction always has a survival cost, so every species has ways of bringing it down when they think the cost is to high.

We do things for reasons that make sense to or own survival, and develop accordingly, whether it fits into some simple narrative or not.

Humans have the most success as social creatures with relatively low reproduction rates. The cost of doing anything else is just too high.

So roughly 90 percent of the time, we have sex for social reasons, actively avoiding babies. And we are physically built to avoid babies as well, under natural conditions. This doesn't work quite as well with a fat filled agricultural diet, however, and we spent centuries trying to fix that technologically and bring ourselves back to or state of nature: near constant sterility and sex for social reasons.

Click to expand...

Well, by definition, the direction evolution tends to is always the one that leads to the most optimal preservation of the species it can find. I don't mean to say that evolution isn't mindless, but by definition it does have an 'agenda' of sorts. Ok, true this doesn't always necessarily mean more babies, but at it's heart, evolution boils down to how we make newer versions of ourselves.

Finding it great has everything to do with it for humans. I can't speak for why anti-social creatures such as leopards have sex (or if they enjoy it) but clearly nature has found a way for them to continue to breed. Other animals have evolved in very different ways to us. The fact that their motivation to breed is different to us just goes to show that reasons for sex such as social bonding and relationship are secondary to it's primary purpose, to make babies.

Personally I just think that we're no different from other animals in that the point of sex is to have kids, and all the other reasons are evolutionary constructs to help us get there in the best fashion. To be honest, I haven't thought about this much, I'm just incredibly existential when it comes to the reasons that we do things. I believe we're agents of instinct, and those instincts have been curated by evolution.

EDIT: I guess I also want to raise the question on whether sex has a different inherent meaning for humans and animals, or whether it has a different meaning per species, per genus or what?? Are humans 'special'? Or are social animals 'special'?

Nilly said:

Well, by definition, the direction evolution tends to is always the one that leads to the most optimal preservation of the species it can find. I don't mean to say that evolution isn't mindless, but by definition it does have an 'agenda' of sorts. Ok, true this doesn't always necessarily mean more babies, but at it's heart, evolution boils down to how we make newer versions of ourselves.

Finding it great has everything to do with it for humans. I can't speak for why anti-social creatures such as leopards have sex (or if they enjoy it) but clearly nature has found a way for them to continue to breed. Other animals have evolved in very different ways to us. The fact that their motivation to breed is different to us just goes to show that reasons for sex such as social bonding and relationship are secondary to it's primary purpose, to make babies.

Personally I just think that we're no different from other animals in that the point of sex is to have kids, and all the other reasons are evolutionary constructs to help us get there in the best fashion. To be honest, I haven't thought about this much, I'm just incredibly existential when it comes to the reasons that we do things. I believe we're agents of instinct, and those instincts have been curated by evolution.

EDIT: I guess I also want to raise the question on whether sex has a different inherent meaning for humans and animals, or whether it has a different meaning per species, per genus or what?? Are humans 'special'? Or are social animals 'special'?

Click to expand...

Well, no, not quite. Evolution picks what it thinks is the best of the random grab-bag of options currently available to it, for use in the immediate future. It is quite likely -- in fact almost guaranteed -- that whatever it is picking is in fact not "optimal," because it can only pick from the current crop of mutations, and those are completely random. Furthermore, what's good right now might not be good in the long run, but evolution doesn't factor that in at all. That's one of the reasons why we're always changing.

No, it doesn't. For less social species, it's an overwhelming hormonal drive. And that's very simple to do. In fact, it's EASIER to do than to make it enjoyable. That requires the newer, more complex social parts of our brain. Why develop a whole new system if the old one that's simpler and less costly was just as good? After all, these brains we have are extremely expensive.

Answer: because most of the time, we aren't having sex for the same reason less social creatures are, and we require that additional system for our purposes.

All animals are different. So which animal are we "just like," exactly?

I'm not saying we're "special." There are many other creatures that also have sex frequently or even dominantly for social bonding. We're not unique in that way. Being social doesn't make us "special" either. It's just our main mode of survival.

Obviously sex does have a vital evolutionary function of reproduction, but that doesn't mean it's the main reason we do it. Vital and dominant are two different things. It's also vital we be social, and it's also vital that we LIMIT reproduction, because of how costly human reproduction is. Humans have extremely long childhoods, and one of the more dangerous birth processes out there. It's to our benefit to reproduce relatively infrequently. That's why, in natural circumstances, women remain sterile for years at a time.

But because it's also to our benefit to bond, we continue to have sex even though there's no potential for reproduction most of the time.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Well, no, not quite. Evolution picks what it thinks is the best of the random grab-bag of options currently available to it, for use in the immediate future. It is quite likely -- in fact almost guaranteed -- that whatever it is picking is in fact not "optimal," because it can only pick from the current crop of mutations, and those are completely random. Furthermore, what's good right now might not be good in the long run, but evolution doesn't factor that in at all. That's one of the reasons why we're always changing.

No, it doesn't. For less social species, it's an overwhelming hormonal drive. And that's very simple to do. In fact, it's EASIER to do than to make it enjoyable. That requires the newer, more complex social parts of our brain. Why develop a whole new system if the old one that's simpler and less costly was just as good? After all, these brains we have are extremely expensive.

Answer: because most of the time, we aren't having sex for the same reason less social creatures are, and we require that additional system for our purposes.

All animals are different. So which animal are we "just like," exactly?

I'm not saying we're "special." There are many other creatures that also have sex frequently or even dominantly for social bonding. We're not unique in that way. Being social doesn't make us "special" either. It's just our main mode of survival.

Obviously sex does have a vital evolutionary function of reproduction, but that doesn't mean it's the main reason we do it. Vital and dominant are two different things. It's also vital we be social, and it's also vital that we LIMIT reproduction, because of how costly human reproduction is. Humans have extremely long childhoods, and one of the more dangerous birth processes out there. It's to our benefit to reproduce relatively infrequently. That's why, in natural circumstances, women remain sterile for years at a time.

But because it's also to our benefit to bond, we continue to have sex even though there's no potential for reproduction most of the time.

Click to expand...

At the end of the day, it all boils down to the following.

No procreation. No sex.

There are plenty of species out there who engage in sexual behavior purely as a matter of procreation (sometimes even resulting in their own immediate death afterwards), without any element of "pleasure" involved whatsoever. Only a few have enjoyment, social bonding, and recreation tacked on as a secondary function of the sexual act. Frankly, even then, under most circumstances, the only purpose that really serves is to facilitate pair bonding, which would ensure a greater chance of survival for any offspring produced anyway.

Using Occam's razor as the standard for measurement here, it simply makes more sense to assume that the primary biological purpose of sex is procreation, rather recreation.

Granted, modern technology has allowed for human beings to disassociate the two to a certain extent (arguably with mixed results). However, this does not alter the fundamental reality that sexuality ultimately originated with, and still primarily centers around, the procreative functions necessary to ensure the survival of our species, and all others of which we are aware.

Gathomas88 said:

At the end of the day, it all boils down to the following.

No procreation. No sex.

There are plenty of species out there who engage in sexual behavior purely as a matter of procreation (sometimes even resulting in their own immediate death afterwards), without any element of "pleasure" involved whatsoever. Only a few have enjoyment, social bonding, and recreation tacked on as a secondary function of the sexual act. Frankly, even then, under most circumstances, the only purpose that really serves is to facilitate pair bonding, which would ensure a greater chance of survival for any offspring produced anyway.

Using Occam's razor as the standard for measurement here, it simply makes more sense to assume that the primary biological purpose of sex is procreation, rather recreation.

Granted, modern technology has allowed for human beings to disassociate the two to a certain extent, arguably to mixed results. However, this does not alter the fundamental reality that sexuality ultimately originated with, and still primarily centers around, the procreative functions necessary to ensure the survival of our species, and all others of which we are aware.

Click to expand...

Well, yeah. But like I said, whether something is vital does not answer whether that is the most frequent reason we do it. Lots of things are vital, infrequently.

Yes, it all ties back to survival at the end of the day, and continuation. That does not mean it's the main reason we do it, or that reproduction is the only reason. After all, as a social species, if we're not bonded, we don't survive. Arguably, the bonding is more necessary, because reproduction alone will not guarantee our survival. Bonding is the groundwork that ensures that when we reproduce, it's not in vain. We're a slow, weak, blind species, compared to most other stuff out there, and the technology required to make living work for us is easier dealt with if we have many pairs of hands. We need to have tight bonds.

And not just to our partner, which is why humans are not and have never been purely monogamous, even in societies where that is the social expectation. We benefit from all kinds of bonds of various lengths and intensities. Because humans don't raise children in isolated units. We raise them communally.

Using Occam's Razor, the only way developing a more complex, highly expensive brain system would make any sense at all, when a simpler and unpleasurable one is just as good at pure reproduction, is if there are additional necessities tied into the reasons humans have sex.

Modern technology has not done anything but restore the natural order of human reproduction before changes in lifestyle caused out natural systems to malfunction. Frequent pregnancies were impossible under the conditions humans evolved in, and societies that still have uncontrolled fertility due to lifestyle and lack of technological counter-measures are some of the most impoverished and diseased, and have blighted their environment, and thus their survival base. It is to our benefit to have limited reproduction and always has been, especially if we're talking long-term.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Well, yeah. But like I said, whether something is vital does not answer whether that is the most frequent reason we do it. Lots of things are vital, infrequently.

Yes, it all ties back to survival at the end of the day, and continuation. That does not mean it's the main reason we do it, or that reproduction is the only reason. After all, as a social species, if we're not bonded, we don't survive. Arguably, the bonding is more necessary, because reproduction alone will not guarantee our survival. Bonding is the groundwork that ensures that when we reproduce, it's not in vain. We're a slow, weak, blind species, compared to most other stuff out there, and the technology required to make living work for us is easier dealt with if we have many pairs of hands. We need to have tight bonds.

And not just to our partner, which is why humans are not and have never been purely monogamous, even in societies where that is the social expectation. We benefit from all kinds of bonds of various lengths and intensities. Because humans don't raise children in isolated units. We raise them communally.

Using Occam's Razor, the only way developing a more complex, highly expensive brain system would make any sense at all, when a simpler and unpleasurable one is just as good at pure reproduction, is if there are additional necessities tied into the reasons humans have sex.

Click to expand...

I certainly won't deny that social bonding is a major factor. However, I think you are perhaps overstating things just a tad. Sexuality is not "necessary" for advanced societies per se.

Chimpanzees, for instance, are a highly social species. However, their approach to sexuality is more in line with the rest of the animal kingdom than it is with ours. For them, sex is an almost purely procreative affair.

Granted, where the Bonobo is concerned, you can say that social bonding probably is the primary function of sexuality. However, even there, you run into problems when trying to compare Bonobo society with the human variety. They tend to be almost exclusively pansexual, and willing to mate with basically "anything that moves," regardless of its gender, maturity, or even species, in some cases.

There might be some human beings out there with those kinds of inclinations. However, they tend to be a rarity rather than the norm. By and large, the vast majority of human beings, while not necessarily monogamous, simply tend to stick with expressions of sexuality which inevitably result in procreative ends as a matter of instinct.

This would seem to refute the idea that social bonding unrelated to procreation is the act's primary purpose.

Modern technology has not done anything but restore the natural order of human reproduction before changes in lifestyle caused out natural systems to malfunction. Frequent pregnancies were impossible under the conditions humans evolved in, and societies that still have uncontrolled fertility due to lifestyle and lack of technological counter-measures are some of the most impoverished and diseased, and have blighted their environment, and thus their survival base. It is to our benefit to have limited reproduction and always has been, especially if we're talking long-term.

Click to expand...

Has it occurred to you that the same societal factors which have made modern women more fertile than their primitive ancestors, may have actually amped up their sex drives as well? Primitive humans likely didn't have the time or energy to live an especially promiscuous lifestyle even if they wanted to.

Gathomas88 said:

At the end of the day, it all boils down to the following.

No procreation. No sex.

There are plenty of species out there who engage in sexual behavior purely as a matter of procreation (sometimes even resulting in their own immediate death afterwards), without any element of "pleasure" involved whatsoever.

Click to expand...

The simplest form of life of which I know, that has a sexual procedure, is a kind of algae called Chlamydomonas.

In its most common form, Chlamydomonas is a single haploid (meaning that it has only one set of chromosomes) cell, that swims around in a pond. Most of the time, it reproduces asexually, via mitosis, dividing into two new cells that are genetically identical to the parent cell.

When a Chlamydomonas detects that pond conditions are going to turn unfavorably, it does something odd. It seeks out another Chlamydomonas of the same species but opposite “mating type” (we don't call it a “sex” or “gender” at this level, nor classify them as “male” and “female”), and merges with it, producing a diploid cell (that is, one that has two sets of chromosomes). The diploid form of Chlamydomonas is a hardened, inactive, “resting stage”, that sinks to the bottom of the pond, and waits for things to get better. When they do, it undergoes meiosis, shuffling the two sets of chromosomes, and dividing into four haploid cells, which are similar to the cells that merged to produce the diploid cell.

The process by which two haploid Chlamydomonas cells merge, is the same process by which sperm and egg cells merge in higher forms of life, and the process by which the diploid Chlamydomonas divides into four haploid cells is the same process by which we produce sperm and egg cells.

Sex, at the cellular level, is all about haploid and diploid cells, and about these two processes by which one is produced from the other.

In Chlamydomonas, mating is done, not so much for reproductive purposes, but as a way of taking a form which is better able to weather adverse conditions. The shuffling of chromosomes, and related promotion of genetic diversity is a side benefit. And the two Chlamydomonas cells that mate don't die, they just cease to exist, having become part of the diploid cell that results from the union.



———

Paramecia have an interesting different sexual procedure. Paramecia are diploid. When two of them mate, their nuclei undergo meiosis, producing four haploid nuclei in each. They trade diploid nuclei, combine two of them, and absorb the extras. The rest of the cell structure is unchanged, so in a sense, you could say that it is the same two paramecia that swim their separate ways after the mating, but genetically, they are now the children of the two that entered into the mating. Genetically, the two original paramecia no longer exist.


“I'll tell you what a Paramecium is! That's the Paramecium! It's a one-celled critter with no brain, that can't fly! Don't mess with me, man, I'm a lawyer!” — Robin Williams as Peter Banning in the movie Hook


———

In very low-level creatures, sex isn't so much for reproduction as for creating genetic diversity. There's one form of life of which I know that accomplishes this in a different way.

A variety of rotifers, of the class Bdelloidea only exist as females, who lay eggs parthenogenically, that hatch to produce daughters that are genetically identical to their mothers. If there were ever any male Bdelloids, they have all died off.

Nevertheless, the Bdelloid rotifers have devised a different means of achieving genetic diversity, that is as effective as sex, and is a side-effect of another survival capability. Bdelloids have the ability, when they detect adverse conditions, to very rapidly dehydrate themselves and achieve a very tough, inactive state, in which they have an exceptional ability to survive extreme conditions, and then to revive when conditions improve. But this process damages their chromosomes, so on reviving, they have a means of repairing their chromosomes, often incorporating pieces of genetic material from the remains of other nearby creatures who did not survive whatever it was that caused the Bdelloid to go into its dehydrated, inactive state. In this manner, Bdelloid rotifers have a degree of genetic diversity comparable to that which other creatures of similar sophistication only achieve through sex.




———

It's only when we get to much higher forms of life that reproduction is exclusively sexual. We humans, of course, only reproduce sexually; but I think there are some animals as high up as fish that are capable of parthenogenesis. Of course, most plants can fairly easily be divided up, on plant asexually into multiple plants.

There's an interesting aspect of plants' sexual reproduction that few know about. The Chlamydomonas described earlier, though it's not very much like what you think of as a plant, is considered a plant. Note that it has two forms, a haploid form and a diploid form. In Chlamydomonas, the primary form is the haploid form, with the diploid form being a specialized “resting state”.

Lets go up the scale a bit, to moss.

The primary form of moss is still diploid. The little leafy plants that you mostly see as moss are diploid forms, called gametophytes. At some point in their existence, they produce sperm and egg cells. They don't do this through meiosis, since they are already haploid. The egg stays in a little chamber in the parent plant, while the sperm goes swimming off looking for an egg to fertilize. When the sperm finds an egg, and merges therewith, the product is a diploid plant, called the sporophyte, very different from the gametophyte. This takes the form of a tall, thin stalk, that grows up from the parent gametophyte whose egg was involved, tipped by a pod. Meiosis takes place in that pod, producing haploid cells called spores, which are eventually dispersed, and which grow into gametophytes.

[Shown here: A small patch of moss gametophytes, with two sporophytes towering above it.]


All plants that have a sexual cycle, have this alternation between haploid gametophytes and diploid sporophytes. In moss, the gametophyte is the dominant form. By the time you get to ferns, the overall cycle is similar to moss, but now the sporophytes are the dominant form, with the gametophytes having been reduced to a small thing that you'd never notice unless you knew what to look for and where to look for it.

By the time you get to seed-bearing plants, the gametophytes have been reduced to just a few cells—the male gametophyte is completely contained in a grain of pollen, while the female gametophyte never leaves the flower or cone in which it is produced.

Gathomas88 said:

I certainly won't deny that social bonding is a major factor. However, I think you are perhaps overstating things just a tad. Sexuality is not "necessary" for advanced societies per se.

Chimpanzees, for instance, are a highly social species. However, their approach to sexuality is more in line with the rest of the animal kingdom than it is with ours. For them, sex is an almost purely procreative affair.

Granted, where the Bonobo is concerned, you can say that social bonding probably is the primary function of sexuality. However, even there, you run into problems when trying to compare Bonobo society with the human variety. They tend to be almost exclusively pansexual, and willing to mate with basically "anything that moves," regardless of its gender, maturity, or even species, in some cases.

There might be some human beings out there with those kinds of inclinations. However, they tend to be a rarity rather than the norm. By and large, the vast majority of human beings, while not necessarily monogamous, simply tend to stick with expressions of sexuality which inevitably result in procreative ends as a matter of instinct.

This would seem to refute the idea that social bonding unrelated to procreation is its primary purpose.

Has it occurred to you that the same societal factors which have made women more fertile, have probably amped up their sex drives as well? Primitive humans likely didn't have the time or energy to live an especially promiscuous lifestyle even if they wanted to.

Click to expand...

Nope, but it's certainly easy to utilize a pre-existing behavior, especially when you also have counter-measures to ensure you don't over-produce. Ocaam's Razor and all. In our case, one of those utilizations happens to be sexuality. Remember the earlier discussion about boobs? There's no reason a maturity and arousal signal must be on the breasts specifically, and it isn't for many creatures. But it's easier than growing a whole new body part.

Well, no, they don't. Most human sexual encounters don't result in reproduction. Under the circumstances we're evolved to exist in, women remain sterile for years while continuing to have sex regularly, and they also reach reproductive maturity much later than we do in our modern environments.

And also, note that women have more "gray" sexualities than men do and are more likely to have sex with other women, even when they are predominantly straight. In fact, virtually all women, no matter what their sexuality, respond sexually to pornography involving ANY combination of sexes. This is another way we continue to have sex and avoid reproduction, if we sense our natural sterility is ending.

Not necessarily, because the hormonal changes we encounter in out modern lifestyles both raise and lower drive-producing hormones. Women's drives correspond to both testosterone and estrogen, but testosterone can convert to estrogen, and both men and women are experiencing higher rates of testosterone conversion in modern environments. This leads to earlier puberty, and thus an earlier realization of a sex drive, but this doesn't necessarily make it higher, because they have the same effect in terms of drive. They are simply more likely to have a heavier estrogen swing.

And beyond that, if environmental estrogen rises high enough to the point of estrogen dominance, this will actually lower the libido, in both women and men. In severe cases, it wipes it out entirely.

Incidentally, this conversion swing is also the reason for uncontrolled fertility; it packs on fat and reduces the capacity for lean muscle, making our natural mechanism for reproduction limitation ineffective.

Also, this doesn't account for the recent past, when women had ridiculously low sex drives despite similar hormonal effects from their environment. I'll tell you what does: women's sex drives are more reactive to stress, and in a thoroughly female-negative society, this will produce an impact on drive.

Women have always had sex fairly frequently, and with several different partners, usually with one or two dominant partners over their lifetime. They are not any more monogamous than men.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Nope, but it's certainly easy to utilize a pre-existing behavior, especially when you also have counter-measures to ensure you don't over-produce. Ocaam's Razor and all. In our case, one of those utilizations happens to be sexuality. Remember the earlier discussion about boobs? There's no reason a maturity and arousal signal must be on the breasts specifically, and it isn't for many creatures. But it's easier than growing a whole new body part.

Well, no, they don't. Most human sexual encounters don't result in reproduction. Under the circumstances we're evolved to exist in, women remain sterile for years, and they also reach reproductive maturity much later than we do in our modern environments.

And also, note that women have more "gray" sexualities than men do and are more likely to have sex with other women, even when they are predominantly straight. In fact, virtually all women, no matter what their sexuality, respond sexually to pornography involving ANY combination of sexes. This is another way we continue to have sex and avoid reproduction.

Not necessarily, because the hormonal changes we encounter in out modern lifestyles both raise and lower drive-producing hormones. Women's drives correspond to both testosterone and estrogen, but testosterone can convert to estrogen, and both men and women are experiencing higher rates of testosterone conversion in modern environments. This leads to earlier puberty, and thus an earlier realization of a sex drive, but this doesn't necessarily make it higher, because they have the same effect in terms of drive. They are simply more likely to have a heavier estrogen swing.

And beyond that, if environmental estrogen rises high enough to the point of estrogen dominance, this will actually lower the libido, in both women and men. In severe cases, it wipes it out entirely.

Incidentally, this conversion swing is also the reason for uncontrolled fertility; it packs on fat and reduces the capacity for lean muscle, making our natural mechanism for reproduction limitation ineffective.

Also, this doesn't account for the recent past, when women had ridiculously low sex drives despite similar hormonal effects from their environment. I'll tell you what does: women's sex drives are more reactive to stress, and in a thoroughly female-negative society, this will produce an impact on drive.

Women have always had sex fairly frequently, and with several different partners, usually with one or two dominant partners over their lifetime. They are not any more monogamous than men.

Click to expand...

Ooookay... There are so many assertions here that I don't even know where to begin. What hard evidence do you have to support any of this?

Women in primitive environments do tend to stay infertile longer. That much is correct.

However, you're not accounting for the reason why this is the case. They're simply not as well fed or in as good of health as first world women. They're also a lot more physically active, and breast feed longer, which tends to take a more significant toll where physical stress is concerned.

Again, issues like that don't just impact fertility. They impact libido as well. It's entirely possible that primitive peoples simply weren't as horny as the modern variety tends to be on average.

Where is the evidence to suggest that pre-history was the giant bi-sexual orgy you're suggesting here? Modern hunter gatherers certainly don't live like that.

Gathomas88 said:

Ooookay... There are so many assertions here that I don't even know where to begin. What hard evidence do you have to support any of this?

Women in primitive environments do tend to stay infertile longer. That much is correct.

However, you're not accounting for the reason why this is the case. They're simply not as well fed or in as good of health as first world women. They're also a lot more physically active, and breast feed longer, which tends to take a more significant toll where physical stress is concerned.

Again, issues like that don't just impact fertility. They impact libido as well. It's entirely possible that primitive peoples simply weren't as horny as the modern variety tends to be on average.

Where is the evidence to suggest that pre-history was the giant bi-sexual orgy you're suggesting here? Modern hunter gatherers certainly don't live like that.

Click to expand...

I have posted dozens of sources to you about this stuff, and you never read it. Do a search.

They're actually better-fed than simplistic agricultural societies. Starving to death is fairly uncommon on any decent piece of land, and they tend to live into their 60's or so. It certainly takes less of a toll than reproducing endlessly, and the life expectancy of people in agricultural societies remained lower for thousands of years.

There's no reason to believe they weren't as horny, going by the ones that still exist, and going by the hormonal nature of women's sex drives. They have plenty of sex, and the hormonal factors in modern societies actually affect men's sex drives more than woman's.

I didn't say it was an orgy. Humans are not a highly promiscuous species. They just aren't a monogamous one either.

And going by averages, they're not highly promiscuous today either. Your average Westerner, with all the benefit of our technological re-balancing, has 4 to 10 partners over a lifetime. That's not exactly an orgy, given that most people have their sexual debut in their teens and continue having sex into old age, which is quite old these days.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

I have posted dozens of sources to you about this stuff, and you never read it. Do a search.

They're actually better-fed than simplistic agricultural societies. Starving to death is fairly uncommon on any decent piece of land, and they tend to live into their 60's or so. It certainly takes less of a toll than reproducing endlessly, and the life expectancy of people in agricultural societies remained lower for thousands of years.

There's no reason to believe they weren't as horny, going by the ones that still exist, and going by the hormonal nature of women's sex drives. They have plenty of sex, and the hormonal factors in modern societies actually affect men's sex drives more than woman's.

I didn't say it was an orgy. Humans are not a highly promiscuous species. They just aren't a monogamous one either.

And going by averages, they're not highly promiscuous today either. Your average Westerner, with all the benefit of our technological re-balancing, has 4 to 10 partners over a lifetime. That's not exactly an orgy, given that most people have their sexual debut in their teens and continue having sex into old age, which is quite old these days.

Click to expand...

First off, average life expectancy for hunter gatherers is roughly 21-37, depending on the tribe. This isn't to say that people can't live to see their sixties. It just isn't especially common.

Besides which, the simple fact of the matter is that there is not a lot of evidence to suggest rampant sexual adventurism among either primitive or modern hunter gatherers, homosexual or otherwise.

While, yes, you are correct in noting that pair-bonding often isn't for life in primitive societies, this doesn't mean that promiscuity is more common either. By and large, hunter-gatherers are probably less promiscuous on average than modern Americans.

They tend to be serial monogamists, if anything.

In lieu of birth control, those liaisons quite often do result in offspring as well. It simply happens to be the case that women breastfeed for an extended period of time afterwards, which tends to significantly cut down on both their fertility and their libido.

As also noted, they don't tend to be especially well fed either (generally having little to no body fat), and are highly active physically. Both have been shown to result in decreased fertility and libido in modern female athletes.

Too Much Exercise Sex Drive | Too much exercise can lower sex drive - Baltimore Sun

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure they enjoy sex as much as the next people.

However, I doubt that they were or are going at it like bonobos, or even necessarily modern college students, either.

vasuderatorrent said:

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?

Click to expand...

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that purpose denotes intent. I rather prefer now to ask what function something performs rather than its purpose.

In logic, you can almost eliminate semantics by practicing this one small distinction in your thought process.

Tim-

Hicup said:

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that purpose denotes intent. I rather prefer now to ask what function something performs rather than its purpose.

In logic, you can almost eliminate semantics by practicing this one small distinction in your thought process.

Tim-

Click to expand...

I am curious as to what you just said. I have read it 8 times now. :shrug: Is this some kind of Tao BS that sounds absolutely profound but actually says nothing at all?

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Your average Westerner, with all the benefit of our technological re-balancing, has 4 to 10 partners over a lifetime.

Click to expand...

I am below average by this standard. I think it's time I have a talk with my wife. My numbers have to come up. She's going to have to give me a little lead way on this one. Surely she will understand. I have a hard time accepting my status as below average.

vasuderatorrent said:

I am curious as to what you just said. I have read it 8 times now. :shrug: Is this some kind of Tao BS that sounds absolutely profound but actually says nothing at all?

Click to expand...

It's really not complicated.

PURPOSE 1 a : something set up as an object or end to be attained : intention b : resolution, determination

I define a function this way: A specific characteristic of a thing that defines the thing independent of any other variable.


Tim-

Hicup said:

It's really not complicated.

PURPOSE 1 a : something set up as an object or end to be attained : intention b : resolution, determination

I define a function this way: A specific characteristic of a thing that defines the thing independent of any other variable.


Tim-

Click to expand...

Let me see if I can apply this correctly.

If a person wants to use hairspray to hold their hair in place then the purpose of hairspray is to hold their hair in place.
If a person wants to use hairspray to make a fiery blow torch then the purpose of hairspray is to make a fiery blow torch.

By this standard the intent of the designer of hairspray is irrelevant.

vasuderatorrent said:

Let me see if I can apply this correctly.

If a person wants to use hairspray to hold their hair in place then the purpose of hairspray is to hold their hair in place.
If a person wants to use hairspray to make a fiery blow torch then the purpose of hairspray is to make a fiery blow torch.

By this standard the intent of the designer of hairspray is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Well I was thinking more in terms of elementary particles, but sure if that works for you then why not?

What is the purpose of sex? Answer, a lot of things, however if you ask what the function of sex is, I believe you can remove a lot of the semantics from the discussion.

Tim-

I don't see that there's any necessity for sex beyond procreation, other than to exploit the ancillary convenience of pleasure. Were it unpleasant, the species would have been jeopardised. There's nothing in our constitution that doesn't cater to survival. Even our vestigial remnants were once functional. Whatever emotional and/or spiritual experiences may be subjectively enhanced by intercourse, they could (and do) exist in its absence.

Nature's just not that frivolous. Are prepubescent children any less capable of forming emotional bonds or even exploring their spirituality, than adults?

For me, it's to spread my misery to others so I feel better about myself. If I have herpes, everyone else has to have it too!

I am rather existential about sex. Its purpose is however you choose to practice it. For some it is their livelihood. For others it is to be avoided because it could somehow impurify their souls. And for a lot it is just a stress relieving recreational activity. To each his own.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Well, nature designed us to go years at a time being reproductivly sterile, and yet have high amounts of sex while sterile. Doesn't seem too productive towards procreation to me.

Furthermore, finding it great has nothing to do with it. Most less social creatures are still driven to do it for mating, even though they don't get as much pleasure from it. There's no reason why we have to find it great if the only purpose is breeding.

People have such a simplistic understanding of evolution. People who don't understand it at all seem to think everything is directly tired to more babies no matter what the circumstances, and there's some kind of plan.

Firstly, evolution is mindless. There's no plan, and sometimes it doesn't even make logical sense.

Second, more babies is not always good evolutionarily. That's why every species has ways of limiting reproduction, and some reproduce very little - including humans. Reproduction always has a survival cost, so every species has ways of bringing it down when they think the cost is to high.

We do things for reasons that make sense to or own survival, and develop accordingly, whether it fits into some simple narrative or not.

Humans have the most success as social creatures with relatively low reproduction rates. The cost of doing anything else is just too high.

So roughly 90 percent of the time, we have sex for social reasons, actively avoiding babies. And we are physically built to avoid babies as well, under natural conditions. This doesn't work quite as well with a fat filled agricultural diet, however, and we spent centuries trying to fix that technologically and bring ourselves back to or state of nature: near constant sterility and sex for social reasons.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's over 99% of the time that we have sex for social reasons. Only about .01% of the sex humans have results in procreation. This is just the number of pregnancies each year, not even counting the 30% reduction here in live births.

roguenuke said:

Only about .01% of the sex humans have results in procreation.

Click to expand...

I wish that my success rate was that high.