Pornography Poll: Personal Issues

[_subgenius]

If one subscribes to the basic tenets of evolution then one must concede that the end game for sex is procreation.

Uh, no they don't.

Then what evolutionary, or natural selection, purpose could it possibly serve? What other genetic possibility are you suggesting?

[_just me]

Uh, no they don't.

Then what evolutionary, or natural selection, purpose could it possibly serve? What other genetic possibility are you suggesting?

There doesn't need to be a genetic purpose. The fact that we see sexual activity in nature that will not and cannot result in offspring shows us that evolution created non-procreative sex and sexual interest.

Sex serves a purpose beyond passing on genetic code. So, I disagree that someone who accepts the basic tenets of evolution must also accept that procreation is "end game" for sex. Especially among human beings.

Anything else must be a genetic mishap or a psychological retardation of development.

I guess I could have misread you here, but I assume you mean all non-procreative sexual activity. Maybe you could elaborate if I am mistaken.

It's quite possible that it is not a mishap at all, but serves a purpose.

[_LDSToronto]

Anyone else a little creeped out by Droopy's porn questions?

Why won't you engage the questions?

Alright, I'll probably regret it: What question would you like to see engaged?

[_subgenius]

There doesn't need to be a genetic purpose. The fact that we see sexual activity in nature that will not and cannot result in offspring shows us that evolution created non-procreative sex and sexual interest.

the activity that we "witness" may still be the result of a genetic error or psychological fault. Just because you see it in nature does not make "right"....does it?

Sex serves a purpose beyond passing on genetic code.

what purpose? and where is your evidence for that purpose?

So, I disagree that someone who accepts the basic tenets of evolution must also accept that procreation is "end game" for sex. Especially among human beings.

but do you have any evidence to support your position?

Anything else must be a genetic mishap or a psychological retardation of development.

I guess I could have misread you here, but I assume you mean all non-procreative sexual activity. Maybe you could elaborate if I am mistaken.

you are not mistaken

It's quite possible that it is not a mishap at all, but serves a purpose.

hmmm...the "anything is possible" defense?
again, what "purpose" is being served....and remember this argument is framed on basic tenets of evolution or natural selection. So, please, explain this imaginary purpose.

[_subgenius]

...but serves a purpose.

1. sexual activity is intended for procreation. (seen throughout all of nature and is of the utmost importance in the existence and survival of our species).
2. sexual activity is intended for intimacy in order to reinforce the fundamental family unit created by procreation. (overwhelming evidence concludes that the best environment for a human child is that which is created by its natural parents - all things being equal).
3. The increased risk of disease and infection corresponds to promiscuous sexual behavior, regardless of any artificial protections or precautions. (much like incestuous behavior increases genetic deformation we see that our behaviors have successful and unsuccessful results towards the desired effect of procreation -- which is survival and existence.)

etc..

[_LDSToronto]

...but serves a purpose.

1. sexual activity is intended for procreation. (seen throughout all of nature and is of the utmost importance in the existence and survival of our species).
2. sexual activity is intended for intimacy in order to reinforce the fundamental family unit created by procreation. (overwhelming evidence concludes that the best environment for a human child is that which is created by its natural parents - all things being equal).
3. The increased risk of disease and infection corresponds to promiscuous sexual behavior, regardless of any artificial protections or precautions. (much like incestuous behavior increases genetic deformation we see that our behaviors have successful and unsuccessful results towards the desired effect of procreation -- which is survival and existence.)

etc..

This line of argumentation is so cliché´ amongst the religious - please provide proper citations when making claims such as "overwhelming evidence concludes..."

While it is true that sexual activity is necessary to propagate a species, there is research that shows that women's sexual preference changes during her menstrual cycle. See Women’s fertility across the cycle increases the short-term attractiveness of creative intelligence and an article from the Sunday Times, 2009

What impact could this have on the claim that sexual activity is intended for building intimacy and bonding a family? What if promiscuity is the natural position of human beings; constantly seeking the best genetic makeup for their progeny?

H.

[_subgenius]

This line of argumentation is so cliché´ amongst the religious - please provide proper citations when making claims such as "overwhelming evidence concludes..."

i think you mean cliché' amongst the atheist, the religious do not consider it cliché' at all.
just the fact that you would question this fact of biological parents being best for children reveals a rather un-informed position (and rather cliché')

But lets get you started:
http://www.clasp.org/publications/Marriage_Brief3.pdf
http://www.childtrends.org/files/MarriageRB602.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/pss/353867
http://www.amazon.com/Unexpected-Legacy ... 0786886161

A study in the Journal of Marriage and Family found that children living with their married biological parents spend more time with their fathers and receive more affection and warmth from them than those living with a step- or single father or a cohabiting father figure.
Sandra L. Hofferth and Kermyt G. Anderson, "Are All Dads Equal? Biology versus Marriage as a Basis for Paternal Investment," Journal of Marriage and Family 65 (February 2003): 213-232.

The National Center for Health Statistics found that children living with their biological parents received professional help for behavior and psychological problems at half the rate of children not living with both biological parents.
Deborah A. Dawson, "Family Structure and Children's Health and Well-being: Data from the National Health Interview Survey on Child Health," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53 (1991): 573-584.

A study found that boys and girls who lived with both biological parents had the lowest risk of becoming sexually active. Teens living with only one biological parent, including those in stepfamilies, were particularly at risk for becoming sexually active at younger ages.
Dawn Upchurch, et al., “Neighborhood and Family Contexts of Adolescent Sexual Activity,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61 (1999): 920-930

Children from divorced homes are 70 percent more likely than those living with biological parents to be expelled or suspended from school.
Deborah Dawson, “Family Structure and Children’s Health and Well-Being: Data from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey on Child Health,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53 (1991): 573-584.

....and so on

While it is true that sexual activity is necessary to propagate a species, there is research that shows that women's sexual preference changes during her menstrual cycle. See Women’s fertility across the cycle increases the short-term attractiveness of creative intelligence and an article from the Sunday Times, 2009

nice citation <----sarcasm......but supporting a hedonistic view of sex is hardly relevant to the point, and a citation on orgasm research shows little support for whatever point you were attempting to make.

What impact could this have on the claim that sexual activity is intended for building intimacy and bonding a family? What if promiscuity is the natural position of human beings; constantly seeking the best genetic makeup for their progeny?

and "what if" pigs could fly? Are you exempt from the "citation" supported claim-making rule that you so earnestly invoke?
nice imagination, yet you have no actual proof or evidence. How about we weigh "citations" about human promiscuity?...all within the realm of evolution and natural selection, of course...correct?
Besides, your argument, or whatever, is beside the original point...the well-being of the progeny was the basis of my position, whereas yours is a more self-centered approach....which is no surprise at all.

[_just me]

There doesn't need to be a genetic purpose. The fact that we see sexual activity in nature that will not and cannot result in offspring shows us that evolution created non-procreative sex and sexual interest.

the activity that we "witness" may still be the result of a genetic error or psychological fault. Just because you see it in nature does not make "right"....does it?

I have no idea what you mean by "right." Evolution doesn't have a right or wrong. It just is. There are plenty of things that have made it through the selection process that don't seem especially useful. That's just how it is.

Obviously sexual intercourse has been highly successful for our species. I'm glad it was invented. The course of evolution has brought human beings to a place in time where we are very successful at surviving. Sexuality is displayed in a miriad of ways. Humans are social and we are pleasure seekers. Both of these traits are helpful from a survival standpoint. But since we are somewhat intelligent we are capable of enjoying pleasure and also minimizing risks. Procreation is a risk and the human family is not in any fear of going extinct any time soon.

Sex serves a purpose beyond passing on genetic code.

what purpose? and where is your evidence for that purpose?

You've already shown that you accept the main reason that I would have said. Bonding. Sexual activity is a bonding experience. Humans are social creatures.

Another purpose is pleasure. Sexual activity is immensely pleasurable. Humans like to do things that cause pleasure. We really like to do pleasurable things together.

So, I disagree that someone who accepts the basic tenets of evolution must also accept that procreation is "end game" for sex. Especially among human beings.

but do you have any evidence to support your position?

What evidence are you looking for? I give as evidence the millions upon millions of humans who have non-procreative sex...and who have been doing it for thousands and thousands of years.

Anything else must be a genetic mishap or a psychological retardation of development.

I guess I could have misread you here, but I assume you mean all non-procreative sexual activity. Maybe you could elaborate if I am mistaken.

you are not mistaken

I'm not sure what evidence you have to support your idea that someone who engages in oral sex has something wrong with them. I'd love to see it. Same goes for people who engage in sexual activity outside the 3 day fertility window a female has each month. What about people who have sex after they are no longer fertile or who have never been fertile?

Do you include masturbation in this theory of yours or just partnered sexual activity?

Do you have any evidence at all to back up your assertion?

It's quite possible that it is not a mishap at all, but serves a purpose.

hmmm...the "anything is possible" defense?
again, what "purpose" is being served....and remember this argument is framed on basic tenets of evolution or natural selection. So, please, explain this imaginary purpose.

Actually, I was not sure what you were getting at because you were so vague and general with your wording. I didn't want to make assumptions.

A drive for non-procreative sex is a natural population control. Adults who do not produce their own offspring are available to help with the rearing of their nieces and nephews and other children of the tribe.
People who do not have pro-creative sex are naturally deselected from the gene pool.

And again, pleasure.

Anyway, I haven't been rude to you. If you are rude again in your response don't expect me to respond to you. This is the Celestial forum and people are supposed to act accordingly.

[_Cardinal Biggles]

Bonobos have sex for all kinds of reasons, reproduction being just one of many:

http://www.primatesworld.com/bonobos.html

[_just me]

Bonobos have sex for all kinds of reasons, reproduction being just one of many:

http://www.primatesworld.com/bonobos.html

That was fascinating!