Motives for sex: Business or Pleasure?

[BurtWorm]

Poll question: Motives for sex: Business or Pleasure?

I've been reading Jared Diamond's "The Third Chimpanzee," about our differences from other animals, especially our closest relatives, the chimpanzees. One major distinction is our sex life, insofar as we are mostly monogamous and we keep sex private, two characteristics that are unusual for any animal. Human females, furthermore, are unique in having "hidden estrus"--i.e., neither females nor males know on the surface when females are receptive to fertilization. This aspect of our sexuality, combined with a coitus to conception ratio of less than 50%, seems to have resulted in our evolving a use of sexuality as a means of pure pleasure that is truly unique to our species.

Other chimps and primates tend to have sex strictly for business: to procreate. Bonobo chimps have sex to relieve social tension as well as to procreate, but--maybe this is the human chauvinist in me speaking--that social aspect of their polymorphic sexuality also seems to be more about business than pleasure.

Many religious fundamentalists seem to think human sex should be strictly about procreation, too, per commandment from God. But if you accept that humans are evolved from previous species, a lot of our behavior is clouded in mystery, being deeply rooted in our animal ancestry. Perhaps what seems to be pure pleasure to us is actually very well disguised business. For example, some sociobiologists suspect that sex is always about the chance to pass along one's genes.

If this is true, this is very well disguised from me. Only once did I ever have sex with the purpose of procreating, and even then the procreation-conscious part was almost an afterthought.

This may seem like a frivolous poll, but I'm seriously curious about what people think their motivations are (in general) to have sex. I would appreciate a thoughtful, adult discussion on the subject so the thread isn't outright deleted.

The question: Why do you have sex? (Generally.)

[Rowdyboy]

1. As a gay man paired with another gay man, it definitely ain't about

procreatin'

[BurtWorm]

2. I wonder if there's a "business" reason for homosex.

:patriot:

[Rowdyboy]

4. Well, maybe guys looking for a "sugar daddy" or hustling on the streets

Other than that, its hard for me to see.

[BurtWorm]

8. One possible evolutionary explanation.

Sex for homosexuals offers the same sorts of social bonding (no bondage jokes, please) opportunities that heterosex offers, i.e., by creating as a by-product economic or other relationships outside the clan, with other clans. Especially long-term homosexual relationships. In puritan America this doesn't seem to make sense, given how gays are often driven out of the clan, effectively ending any chance to extend economic relations through them to other clans. But it definitely works differently in other societies.

[sui generis]

11. well the answer to that is

in "natural law", the tribe doesn't chase out the gay chimps, the gay non-alpha pack males, the gay penguins.

Only humans do that crap.

[Coexist]

16. I always tell fundies that maybe god made homosexuals

as a means of population control! That makes their heads explode.

[Skinner]

27. Read Adam's Curse by Bryan Sykes

He proposes an interesting hypothesis about the existence of homosexuality. In brief: He believes the gene is passed along the female line, exclusively from mother to child (male or female), and somehow serves the evolutionary purposes of the mother's female offspring. In other words: Having a gay brother increases the evolutionary success of his heterosexual sister (who, like her mother carries the "gay gene") perhaps because the gay brother offers more help with childrearing.

One piece of evidence: Studies show that in gay males, the relative most likely to be gay is the brother of their mother (ie: their maternal uncle). There seems to be no correlation to suggest that gay fathers have gay sons.

Mandatory disclaimer: This is a very new field of inquiry, and there are many competing hypotheses. Other than the obvious fact that being gay is not a choice, and the fact that homosexuality appears to be genetic, there is still no generally-accepted explanation for the gay gene or how it works.

[sui generis]

10. I suspect

if a guy can get himself off it's not a huge stretch for a guy to be okay getting off with another guy. It's all basically the same equipment, more or less. Same for the gals -

All the other social baggage that goes with the idea is just that, baggage.

When you get right down to it - the added complexity is the dynamic of sharing pleasure between any two partners - both giving and receiving. In reality that's where the real "intimacy" lies, not in the mechanics (or acrobatics in some cases) but in the desire to do that with another human and in the result. At least for me "intimacy" has nothing to do with any body part in and of itself.

But setting out to conceive a child IS a big deal if you are being responsible adults. The "business" side of that really does need to be well thought out for the sake of that child.

[sui generis]

3. Pleasure Other:

I collect toaster ovens.

:evilgrin:

[Dissenting_Prole]

5. Six and a half billion people on the planet

and only enough resources for maybe 2 billion, if we're careful.

The planet certainly doesn't need me to spit out another human, so it's ALL PLEASURE for me baby!

[Inland]

6. Eeet's to GIF playzure to weemen, I luff zem all. nt

[cynatnite]

7. It was all pleasure...the procreating was an accident

:smoke:

[etherealtruth]

52. Turned out to be business and pleasure ...

... three times for me.

[smartvoter]

9. Dolphins evidently have sex for pleasure as well.

Makes you wonder about the brain size thing.

[Seabiscuit]

12. Other: it enhances the salubrious effects of psychedelics?

Bill Maher - are you out there?

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. Consider this

Because human babies are born only about 2/3 "cooked" (a baby with a fully-formed human skull could rarely be successfully birthed), infants are absolutely helpless. This is a big disadvantage - how can mom go forage for chow when the squalling baby draws predators?

Mom obviously needs help. If there's no reason for dad to hang around after his "business" is done, survival of the infant is less likely. The solution is a strong mom/dad family bond that transcends the task of keeping the kid alive.

The solution to creating that bond is sex.

Sex is business - not only the business of creating the kid, but also in creating the bond that raises the odds that the kid can be protected into adulthood. It's also why (assumed) monogamy is typical.

[BurtWorm]

14. But how many women would say they're having sex

because they need help raising a kid and need to establish a bond? I have never once heard a woman give me that reason for having sex.

If contraceptives are used, is sex still that kind of business? If not, what kind of business is it?

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. They call it "the oldest profession" for a reason

Our behavior has created our society, not the inverse. Don't use the rationalizations we moderns create for our behavior to explain away the "business" roots of those behaviors.

Sex is fun (and monogamy is the default social paradigm) because it serves a business purpose.

You've probably never heard a man say that he wants to finish the race first, or go to med school or get the big bonus because (instinctively) he feels that it'll increase his chances of getting a better mate, either.

We use contraception as a way to mitigate the main side-affect of our behavior.

Eating good food is fun. Some people exercise and take diet pills to help deal with the side-affects of overeating. That doesn't mean that the basic function of eating is actually pleasure and not business.

*Almost* everything that we do for fun, has a functional purpose.(perhaps the only exceptions are those things we do to emulate the feedback we get from pleasurable activities)

[cosmik debris]

15. You are anthropomorphizing

When you say Bonobo Chimps have sex for stress relief, how do you know? Did you interview the chimps? Did you measure their tension before and after? Playing baseball relieves tension, but it is also fun. How do you determine why I play baseball?

And you completely omitted dolphins who have sex just for fun.

Your major premise is faulty, so all conclusions based on it are faulty as well.

[BurtWorm]

17. How do you know dolphins have sex just for fun?

;)


If you think I'm drawing conclusions, you've drawn the wrong conclusion.

[cosmik debris]

18. They scream when they come

N/T :)

[cosmik debris]

20. You are right

I retract my statement about dolphins. But it is clear that they have sex for no apparent reason. Jump to your own conclusion, but don't anthropomorphize.

[BurtWorm]

22. Yes, master.

:eyes:

[cosmik debris]

24. Again you are right

I apologize and rephrase: If you don't want people to make fun of you, don't anthropomorphize.

[BurtWorm]

31. By the way, bonobos do relieve social tension with mouth-to-mouth kisses

and quick couplings--meaning, they use non-procreational sex to counterbalance aggression. If they fight, they kiss or have sex immediately afterward. This is not my observation. I'm just reporting the observations of bobono watchers. For example:

http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html

That sex is connected to feeding, and even appears to make food sharing possible, has been observed not only in zoos but also in the wild. Nancy Thompson-Handler, then at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, saw bonobos in Zaire's Lomako Forest engage in sex after they had entered trees loaded with ripe figs or when one among them had captured a prey animal, such as a small forest duiker. The flurry of sexual contacts would last for five to 10 minutes, after which the apes would settle down to consume the food.

One explanation for the sexual activity at feeding time could be that excitement over food translates into sexual arousal. This idea may be partly true. Yet another motivation is probably the real cause: competition. There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict.

First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.

Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter's mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.

[cosmik debris]

44. Extrapolating motive

You can't logically ascribe motive, even in the human sphere, without asking the subject what his/her motive is. (It used to be assumed that rape was a crime motivated by sex. Now it is generally understood to be a crime of violence/dominance.) But you can't even ask a chimp why he has sex with everyone in the band except his close relations. Your sources seem to assume that the reasons a chimp kisses another chimp is the same reason that a human kisses another human. Just because you like the theory doesn't mean that you can make all the evidence fit.

Note that your source even qualifies the assertion: "One explanation for the sexual activity at feeding time could be..."

[BurtWorm]

47. Duh!

;)

You don't think I'm an idiot really, do you? Because I'm not an idiot, as far as I know.

[cosmik debris]

51. I don't know you well enough to form a conclusion.

But you do seem to be a proponent of a theory that is based on a logical fallacy. Is that idiocy? You tell me.

[BurtWorm]

53. First you tell me what the theory is you think I'm a proponent of.

As far as I know, I wasn't putting forward any theories.

[cosmik debris]

55. You posted two sources

both held the basic premise that humans could know the motives of other species. That premise has no basis in fact or logic. And yet you saw fit to repeat it.

[BurtWorm]

56. Where did I say explicitly that humans could know the motives of other

species?

PS: You seem to be doing to me what you think I was doing to bonobos.

[cosmik debris]

59. From your first post

"Other chimps and primates tend to have sex strictly for business: to procreate. Bonobo chimps have sex to relieve social tension as well as to procreate..."

That seems to be a pretty explicit statement that you know why chimps have sex.

[BurtWorm]

61. So I should have said "seem to" instead of "tend to."

Is that your point?

Okay. Point taken.

[cosmik debris]

60. From your other source post

"they use non-procreational sex to counterbalance aggression." Another explicit statement.

[BurtWorm]

63. What conclusions do you draw from the observations, I wonder.

[cosmik debris]

64. I try not to draw unwarranted conclusions

And when I do I get corrected as you did to me above.

[BurtWorm]

65. Do you think it's unwarranted for bonobo observers to draw

the conclusions they draw, the ones that I cited above? (Given, of course, that when a scientist draws a conclusion, they're rarely slamming the door shut on alternative readings pending new evidence?)

[cosmik debris]

66. It certainly is not a valid conclusion

In order for a conclusion to be valid, all conflicting conclusions must be invalid. To conclude that chimps behave a certain way for a certain reason is the same as concluding that no other reason can be valid, that there are no other reasons why the chimp would behave that way.

[BurtWorm]

67. I think you're wrong about that.

You are unusually sensitive about the contingent nature of assumptions--I'm contingently assuming, I hasten to add!--and this is very admirable (I contingently think). But the same kind of contingency is fundamental to scientific investigation, isn't it? I'll throw all caution to the wind and say that yes, it is! No scientist worth their salt draws conclusions that rule out the possibility that they may be proved wrong.

But does this prevent scientists from making statements about what they think they're observing? How would science or knowledge progress if no one was allowed to state what they thought they were observing unless all possible alternative explanations were ruled absolutely invalid?

[cosmik debris]

68. OK, I looked up conclusion

Here is what Webster says:

1 a : a reasoned judgment : INFERENCE b : the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises; especially : the inferred proposition of a syllogism
2 : the last part of something: as a : RESULT, OUTCOME b plural : trial of strength or skill -- used in the phrase try conclusions c : a final summation d : the final decision in a law case e : the final part of a pleading in law
3 : an act or instance of concluding

Which definition of "conclusion" are you using?

[BurtWorm]

69. Guess which one.

;)

I bet, if you think carefully enough, you'll be right, but I won't put my daughter's college education on it.

[cosmik debris]

70. OK I looked up valid

Here is what Webster says:

1 : having legal efficacy or force; especially : executed with the proper legal authority and formalities <a valid contract>
2 a : well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory> b : logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>
3 : appropriate to the end in view : EFFECTIVE <every craft has its own valid methods>
4 of a taxon : conforming to accepted principles of sound biological classification

Which definition of "valid" would you agree to?

[BurtWorm]

71. See post #69

[cosmik debris]

72. We are not speaking the same language.

You can not support the logical validity of the conclusion. (see definitions) Do I need to look up "logical" for you?

[BurtWorm]

73. Evidently not.

Are you saying that scientists **cannot** effectively infer from bonobo behavior that they use sex to offset aggression? Why not?

[cosmik debris]

75. They can infer what ever they want

But they can not state as a fact or conclusion that "they use sex to offset aggression" because there are other possible explanations that are equally valid. It may be a dominance display, it may be an aggression display, it may relate to something we know nothing about. The biggest problem is that the authors you cite apply human values to chimp behavior, anthropomorphizing. They filter their "conclusions" through their prejudice that chimps have the same motivations as humans. In truth, we have no idea what range of motivations they may have. We can guess, but we can not conclude. Subjective observation does not constitute fact.

[BurtWorm]

76. When do scientists state something as a "fact or conclusion" in the sense

you seem to be using it?

I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but you're using language very similar to what intelligent design proponents or creationists use to object to evolution. They make the mistake that scientific fact (such as evolution) is "settled" the way law cases are settled, that there is some judgment by some arbitrator that all scientists must abide by. But that's not how science works. Science progresses because scientists engage in the kind of dialogue we're having right now, offering different views and building consensus about what seems most reasonable to most people. But the dialogue and the disagreement go on. Not very much is ever settled once and for all. Maybe physical laws are, but not much else is taken as "concluded" in the sense of "finished."

You're not suggesting scientists should never state opinions about what they think they're observing, are you? I don't see how that would be possible, first of all, humans being what they are. Why would anyone even do science if making inferences were prohibited or even denigrated the way you seem to want it to be denigrated?

[cosmik debris]

77. The language I am using is from a text on Logic

An Introductory Logic
By William J. Kilgore

What I am suggesting is that science must stick to the rigorous requirements of logic rather than subjective observation to draw conclusions. That is the standard that all physical scientists are held to. Anything less than that is not science, it is science fiction.

[BurtWorm]

78. How do scientists avoid using subjective observation?

Maybe you think animal ethology is not a science?

If you see a thousand instances of bonobos fucking after fighting, you think it's not logical to conclude that the fucking and fighting might have something to do with each other? Or maybe you shouldn't assume that what looks like aggressive behavior to us really is aggressive? Maybe they're not really fucking when they're rubbing their genitals together?

[cosmik debris]

79. By testing the hypothesis

Measurement is not subjective if it is repeatable. But there is no test for the hypothesis in question. Therefore, there is no provable validity.

Earlier you made the definitive statement:

"they use sex to offset aggression"

Now your statement has been reduced to:

"might have something to do with"

What's next: "Sex related program activity"?

[BurtWorm]

80. We've agreed that the language I used was wrong.

We've agreed that we're talking about contingent assumptions. Now go back to the article on bonobo behavior and tell me that it's not written with just the kind of careful, contingent language you and I now agree should be used to talk about such observations. Are you going to maintain that the ethologists whose observations are cited in the article are making improper inferences?

Or are you just trying to stand rigidly on your position that no conclusion can be reached about what bonobo behavior might mean because we're not bonobos?

[cosmik debris]

81. I would only make one change in that last statement

"no conclusion can be reached about what bonobo behavior might mean TO BONOBOS because we're not bonobos"

[BurtWorm]

82. How about "no inference useful to humans can be made

about what bonobo behavior might mean to bonobos because we're not bonobos?"

[cosmik debris]

83. Why substitute inference for conclusion.

You can infer what ever comes to mind, but inferences are like assholes, everybody has one, but it is rude to share it indiscriminately.

[BurtWorm]

84. Because science is all about inference.

What do you think inductive reasoning is?

I am now inferring that you and I really do have a fundamental disagreement here, which I will sum up as follows (maybe we can agree on the summary, at least):

My position: It's reasonable to "conclude" (in the sense of "infer") that bonobos fuck to ward off aggression. It's legitimate to conclude (in the sense of infer) this because observations by many ethologists strongly support such an inference. This does not mean that bonobos absolutely DO fuck to ward off aggression. There may be other, better explanations for their behavior. But until a pipeline to bonobo motivations is discovered, it's reasonable to make this inference, and it's scientific to do so.

Your position: It is unreasonable to "conclude" (in the sense of decide) anything about bonobo behavior as it might be understood by bonobos because humans are not bonobos. Legitimate science does not deal in inferences rooted in subjective observations that cannot be verified with certainty.

Is that a fair representation of your position?

[cosmik debris]

85. OK, I looked up science

You said:

"it's reasonable to make this inference, and it's scientific to do so."


Webster said:

"1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding"

Inference is not scientific because science requires knowledge not speculation (in the sense of "inference").

I do not use "conclude" in the sense of "decide" as you suggest. I use conclude in the sense "to reach as a logically necessary end by reasoning" (from Webster). There is no logical necessity in your "conclusion".

[BurtWorm]

87. In my opinion, you need to step back a little.

I think you're missing the forest because you're hung up on the trees.

I don't think scientists consult Webster's before they report on their researches. Science is not about logically necessary ends. Ideology is about that.

[cosmik debris]

88. Well, there is our disagreement in a nutshell.

I believe science requires proof and facts, and ideology only requires opinions and speculation.

[BurtWorm]

89. According to your criteria, apparently, paleontology is not science.

Evolution is not scientific because it isn't "proved." The theory of relativity is not scientific. Gravity is not scientific. Nothing is apparently scientific on your view because nothing is proved to the standards you're setting up. Humans are too trapped in their own subjectivity to do anything but opine and speculate.

[cosmik debris]

96. The name of the fallacy you are using

is "Reducto ad absurdum". Your concept of science as divorced from logic and fact denies the basic scientific method and all the requirements of good logic. It makes itself irrelevant.

[BurtWorm]

97. I am almost certain we have a serious misunderstanding going on here.

I don't think I have said anywhere that science ought to be divorced from logic. What I have been trying to say is that too rigid attention to logic--too rigid attention to deductive reasoning rather than inductive reasoning--does no service to science. Logic is an important tool in explaining what science discovers, but it is not, as you seem to me to be saying, identical to science.

I'm not trying to win an argument here. I'm trying to understand what you are arguing and trying my best to explain what I understand about science and logic. To me, what you argue seems radically opposed to science in that it shares with creationism and other pseudosciences an apparent contempt for or incomprehension of the inductive nature of scientific methodology. I'm in total agreement with you on the need to be careful of claiming too much certainty in what science teaches. But I'm having difficulty understanding why you then make the leap that science should only be about what you can state with certainty. Isn't that what you're arguing? If that's the case, then what is there to talk about in science?

Fifty years ago, most geologists scoffed at the idea that the continents drift. Then they found a means of testing the hypothesis and now plate tectonics are the fundament of geology. No one has seen a single continent drift. They have only seen evidence of drift in the symmetric magnetic polarity of rock on each side of the bottom of the ocean. No one has ever seen a species evolve from another. They have only inferred evolution from shared bone structure and parts of genomes in different species. No one knows for certain why bonobos fuck rather than fight, but those who observe them have good, logical reasons for inferring why they do. Whether you like it or not.

[cosmik debris]

100. We seem to have a couple of issues going at the same time

1. Should social science be held to the same rigorous standards of logic and scientific method as physical science? I say yes, you say no.
2. The semantic argument over the meaning of knowledge and belief, fact or inference, conclusion or theory. That one is getting old. If you want to continue to play coy on definitions, there is no point in continuing.

[BurtWorm]

101. I don't know--or trust--what rigorous standards of logic

you're talking about for physical science, some of which (i.e., the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, or the properties of light) is not logical in a traditional sense at all. Should physical science math add up? Yes. Should social science be held to rigorous standards? Yes (though I don't know--or trust, I guess--what you mean by "the same" standards as physical science).

It really comes down to a lack of mutual trust, I think. It seems to me that you decided immediately that I was wrong about bonobo social behavior, though the behavior of bonobos is not what this thread was really about and though I cited the research of bonobo observers to explain why I made the statement I'd made about bonobos in the original post. Now you seem to be trying to claim a purer attitude about science than I have. But I've come not to trust that you know what you're talking about, frankly, because the authorities you cite for your argument are Webster's Dictionary and an introductory logic text. Nothing against either the dictionary or logic text books, but where is the science? Why not consult what actual scientists have to say on the subject? Or are you a scientist?

Full disclosure: I'm not a scientist, but I've been reading almost exclusively on the subject, especially on evolution and biology, most recently.

[cosmik debris]

102. Try these authorities.

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Personal note: My background is in Physics but I did not work long in that field because electronics was more lucrative. I am retired now.

[BurtWorm]

103. There is absolutely NOTHING in those articles

that rules out hypothesizing that bonobos fuck so as not to fight.

Thanks.

[cosmik debris]

104. Semantic argument again

I give up

[BurtWorm]

105. Good, because I think we're arguing about gas.

Do you want to be declared winner of the argument? It's clear to me you have no interest in makiing your argument understood or trying to understand my argument.

:hi:

[cosmik debris]

86. Science is also about deductive reasoning

2 a : the deriving of a conclusion by reasoning; specifically : inference in which the conclusion about particulars follows necessarily from general or universal premises

(from Webster)

[lateo]

94. Actually this is true.

I saw a documentary on the Bonobo Chimps just a few months ago. They are probably the most hedonistic of our cousins.

[Coexist]

19. actually, I have heard the argument that we have swollen breasts and hidden

ovulation as a reason for long-term monogamy. If the reason you have sex is to pass on your genes (as a male) and you don't know when she is fertile (by her breasts or genitalia) then you must continually have sex with her, and stay with her when not having sex, to make sure she is not mating with someone else. That is the only way to ensure that the progeny contains your genes.

This may have developed (for the female) as a way to keep her mate with her - because when our brains became larger, our young needed to be born more and more immature (before the skull got to big to pass through the pelvis). She needed her mate to bring food because she needed to constantly carry and tend to her extremely immature young (not walking for a full year - think about it compared to other animals - most walk shortly after birth). Not only does the male need to stay with the female to impregnate her, but to ensure that she is cared for to care for the baby until it is slightly autonomous (7 years). So serial monogamy might be an evolutionary result for humans.

[BurtWorm]

23. My question though is about individuals' motivations.

I know what the sociobiologists say, but as I said in the original post, my sociobiological motivations for sex are extremely well hidden from me. Are they for you? Do you ever think about ensuring that your progeny are your own? If I do, it's extremely rare, and never front-burner consciously.

[Coexist]

25. No - it is strictly recreational for me!

And if having more kids were on DH's mind every time he wanted to fool around, I would've left him - I don't want that many!!!!!

[Skinner]

28. Self-delete

x

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. You can't separate the biological motivations

We deceive ourselves into thinking that the reasons for our behavior are much more complex than they really are.

Generally speaking, you'll prefer (even if you don't think of it in these terms) activities that get you laid. She'll prefer (again, often unconsciously) activities that keep her (and her offspring) protected.

I remember an X-files episode, of all things, that put it pretty well. A lady biologist was explaining why she studied bugs. She said; "they feed, they respirate, and they procreate, and they don't try to kid themselves that they're doing something more."

[BurtWorm]

39. Yet, when humans have sex purely for business, they succeed less than 50%

of the time. But when they have sex strictly for pleasure, the success rate is much higher. So who is being deceived by their motives?

[Coexist]

42. All right - biologists - front and center... do hormonal changes occur

when a woman is "enjoying" a sexual experience? Does the acidity of her secretions make it more likely that fewer sperm will die (i.e. making it a more hospitable environment) or hurry them along or something?

Interesting stuff here.

[BurtWorm]

45. That's a very interesting question.

:toast:

It's very interesting to me, too, that the coitus-to-conception ratio is so low--that it's so damn hard for so many people to procreate when they want to. This would seem to argue against the notion that conception is the EXPECTED consequence of sex--it really is only one, and it's not even the most likely to occur consequence of sex.

[Coexist]

49. It came from the fact that my midwife told me to have *ahem*

really "juicy" sex to kick-start my labor (I had a very big baby inside me).

That the hormones released when enjoying sex would assist my labor - so I just wondered if the same thing happened when conception was the issue instead of birth. Our bodies are amazing.

[lumberjack_jeff]

43. You don't have a sex drive for the purpose of having more pleasure.

You find sex fun because that assures that you will seek more sex. Sex serves more than one business purpose.

"Pleasure" is only the tool by which beneficial biological function is encouraged.

[BurtWorm]

48. That makes sense.

In fact, maybe another enticement, besides the fun, is the good chance that it WON'T result in pregancy.

:think:

[Seabiscuit]

30. Does this kind of stuff come from some textbook?

[Coexist]

32. I think it was a magazine article

it was a few years ago that I read it.

Sorry, I can't cite it.

[Seabiscuit]

33. You must have a good memory.

I never read much about sex. Too busy having sex, maybe? :)

[Coexist]

34. I was an anthropology/ archaeology major

I still try to keep up - it interests me.

[Seabiscuit]

37. Good for you. I really enjoyed my anthropology class in college.

[Skinner]

35. From many books.

Here are a few:

The Third Chimpanzee, by Jared Diamond
The Moral Animal, by Robert Wright
The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris
The Red Queen, by Matt Ridley

[Skinner]

21. I think this question misses the point.

For thinking beings like us who understand our own motivations, we engage in sex for pleasure. Even for animals, who can't contemplate their own motivations, they engage in sex because they feel a strong desire to do so -- not because they "know" it will lead to babies. In the billions of years of evolution, it is only very recently that any creature was able to think about why they might be engaging in a particular behavior.

The author's point is that sex is pleasurable because sex *IS* about reproduction. And the bottom line of Evolution is reproduction. There is a reason why you find sex fun:

Because your ancestors thought sex was fun. When they had sex, they had offspring. And their desire for sex was passed on to their offspring.

And what about those creatures that didn't get any pleasure from sex? It's simple really: They didn't have any offspring. Or else they had very, very few offspring, and were overwhelmed by the offspring of creatures who get pleasure from sex.

So, yes, for human beings the reason why we have sex is pleasure. And you are correct, we are somewhat unique in that sex seems to serve a purpose other than purely for procreation. (Bonobos -- or pigmy chimps as Diamond calls them -- seem to use sex for non-procreation purposes as well, albeit different ones.)

So, my point is: If you ask the average person if they have sex for reproduction or for fun, the vast majority will rightly say "because it's fun". At the risk of making a circular argument, the question follows: Why is it fun? And the answer is: Because it serves an extremely important evolutionary purpose. So evolution rewarded genes that tended to make sex fun.

An interesting aside: Now that we have, perhaps for the first time in the history of life, effectively detached "sex" from "procreation" through the use of contraception and cultural changes that have led people to (try to) select the time when they have their offspring -- over (long, long) evolutionary time will we see a decrease in the human desire for sex? If by some fluke, even if someone happens to lack any interest in sex, they may still engage in it (once or twice) because they know sex is necessary for reproduction and because they want to reproduce.

[BurtWorm]

26. Very well said.

Very well explained. :toast:

(And I'm not just saying that because of the little blue guy by your name. ;) )

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. I'm with you 80%

An interesting aside: Now that we have, perhaps for the first time in the history of life, effectively detached "sex" from "procreation" through the use of contraception and cultural changes that have led people to (try to) select the time when they have their offspring -- over (long, long) evolutionary time will we see a decrease in the human desire for sex? If by some fluke, even if someone happens to lack any interest in sex, they may still engage in it (once or twice) because they know sex is necessary for reproduction and because they want to reproduce.

I don't think so. Partnership bonding serves a biological and social purpose independent of procreation. Setting aside the issue of protecting our offspring, I have my spouse's back, and vice versa.

Within my kids' lifetimes, humans will have the capability to separate reproduction from sex, pregnancy or childbirth. (The mechanisms for doing that are ghoulish, but it will be technically possible)

[Inland]

54. It's the injection of conscious decisionmaking.

Birds and bees don't have sex for fun or for procreation, since the very words imply a consciousness about what they are doing and what the results will be in the sex department.

Probably if I were 16 again, I could better articulate the unconscious, unthinking drive of it all.

[NuttyFluffers]

93. i like it but the last paragraph.

"An interesting aside: Now that we have, perhaps for the first time in the history of life, effectively detached "sex" from "procreation" through the use of contraception and cultural changes that have led people to (try to) select the time when they have their offspring -- over (long, long) evolutionary time will we see a decrease in the human desire for sex? If by some fluke, even if someone happens to lack any interest in sex, they may still engage in it (once or twice) because they know sex is necessary for reproduction and because they want to reproduce."

sex has been detached from procreation from the very beginning with all the homosexual encounters from the panalopy of creatures that have engaged in it, far, far, far, before man ever hit the scene (which by default automatically throws out the adam's curse theory based on some sociological factor out the window before it had a chance to breathe). unless they *all* learned it from us -- clever devils they are.

sex has been detached from pleasure, as we understand it, in plenty of species from the earliest part, too. ask how fun pissing your sperm on eggs or handing a sperm packet is. or being locked in a cubbyhole only to be brought out to fertilize a princess and die with your penis ripped off and still attached in her. or being basically killed off at the moment of coitus with your throbbing member encrusted inside. or entwined only to shrivel to an inconsequential parasitic blip of your former self attached to your "mate" eternally, to be forgotten evermore. perhaps they are having the time of their lives, who knows (i channel rumsfeld), but in no way that the human mind can understand.

also life has been detached from sex in the very beginning with the far more prevalent asexual reproduction. and sex has been detached from gender dichotomy by multiple species having a whole range of different sexes, combination of sex organs, etc.

life is again detached from sex, but this time in our species with the help of condoms and turkey basters. but will test tube babies replace sex? probably not, too many generations of ingrained pleasure is associated with it. it'd take a pleasureable force, that could not be co-mingled with sex (which scratches out most drugs), that blows sex out of the water to the point of banality. we aren't at that point yet, i believe.

in the end sex is just one tool in the kit of life. some take the ambling branch that is sex, some don't, and in the end we're all trying to outrace genetic death and enslavement by viruses. so we should all cheer up from this, so far, pointless march of life and just enjoy the pleasure where we can find it.
:7

[BurtWorm]

98. Very nice post!

:applause:

Well said. Drink up! :toast:

[Beam Me Up]

36. Sex is used for lots of things, not only pleasure and making babies.

Sex is also used to DOMINATE, for example. Alpha males and all that.

[Finder]

41. Interesting topic

I couldn't answer the poll though.

I personally use/have used sex for pleasure, business and as a tool. Sort of like a Bonobo I guess.lol

Another book that discusses the topic is "Demonic Males" and basically states what others have offered above.

I also do not believe monogamy for life is natural.

[eridani]

92. It probably is for the very short lives we used to live.

Some sociologist once said "Divorce is a functional substitute for death."

[lukasahero]

46. Child-free by choice

but my husband and I have a pretty healthy sex life.

[kweerwolf]

50. Forget procreation and fun ...

... I think a sizable number of people have sex just to relieve boredom.

[julialnyc]

58. some people also do it to validate themselves

and feel desired

[julialnyc]

57. I do not wish to get pregnant at the moment

but as a woman I can definitely tell that my desire changes in different times in my cycle. Both me and my husband seem to be the most "in the mood" during my ovulation time even though neither of us are quite ready for children so he must be picking up on something too.

[Xithras]

62. Hidden estrus may have had another purpose.

Among animal species, human females are especially notable for their helplessness during the final month or two of pregnancy. Technology allows us to work around this pretty well today, but in evolutionary terms it was important for a pregnant female to have someone around to protect her. Evolution, therefore, kicked in and worked out a way to get men to stick around.

In animal species where estrus is obvious, mating tends to be "hit and run". When the female goes into heat, the male mounts her a few times, impregnates her, and then goes his merry way. Since early human males couldn't tell when women were ready to mate, they had to stay closer to them and mate regularly. This constant proximity allowed bonds to form (friendship, if not love) which kept the male around to protect her during her most vulnerable period.

Women who were pregnant without mates were eaten. Women who were pregnant with mates were far less likely to be eaten. Evolution, therefore, favored any mechanism which bonded mates.

[Roland99]

74. For the business of fun

;)

[REP]

90. I'm Nulliparous and Have Been Sterilized Twice - What's Your Best Guess?

Biology is not destiny.

[phusion]

91. Don't Bonobos masturbate?

If they do, they clearly enjoy and find pleasure in non-productive orgasms.

So what's to say they don't engage in intercourse just for pleasure?

[BurtWorm]

99. As cosmik debris has pointed out, it's impossible to know for certain

what goes on in the minds of bonobos, but you could very well be right.

[Atman]

95. All of us mammals have sex "for pure pleasure."

In fact, that is the ONLY reason most mammals have sex. It is by design.

Think about it...those two dogs humping on your lawn...did the male dog thing, "Hmm, not enough labradors around. Better impregnate the bitch!" Hell no. That dog is driven by pure pleasure. Nature made sex pleasurable so animals WOULD have sex. Would you stick your dick in there if it felt like a meat grinder? Hell no. Humans and animals "do it" for one reason and one reason only...nature made it feel really good. Otherwise we'd have died off many millenia ago.