Why scientifically, do we need procreation as a species?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saint
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the dual purposes of sex: procreation and pleasure. Participants argue that the enjoyment of sex is essential for human connection and societal cohesion, suggesting that the majority of sexual activity is driven by pleasure rather than solely for reproduction. There is no definitive measure of what constitutes "too much" or "too little" sex, as personal circumstances vary widely. The conversation touches on moral implications and societal norms surrounding sexual behavior, emphasizing that individual responsibility is key. Ultimately, the enjoyment derived from sex is seen as a fundamental aspect of human experience that contributes to population sustainability.
  • #101
Shay10825 said:
It depends on who you are. There are some people that think that they have to do it to be "cool" but most people I know don't. Usually the people that call themselves "pimps" think that they have to do it. Most people just want to do it to see what it's like.

This must explain why Saint said "most", the keyword.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #102
Shay10825 said:
NOt really. It's hard not to do it because you don't know what you are missing. Everyone everywhere is talking about it (we even talk about it in some classes) and it's hard because you want to know what you are missing.


No. That can be hard yes. BUt it will be much harder once you know what you are missing. Much.
 
  • #103
if virginity is not important, then there is no taboo about sex, right?

Do you think parents have the right to control their children (17<age<21) NOT to have sex?
 
  • #104
I don't think Parents have any rights over their children, I think children should be educated by the community and no one person(s) should be given ownership or controll over them.
 
  • #105
Smurf said:
I don't think Parents have any rights over their children, I think children should be educated by the community and no one person(s) should be given ownership or controll over them.

Yeah...let's see the community staying up all night or changing your baby's diapers.
 
  • #106
Smurf said:
I don't think Parents have any rights over their children, I think children should be educated by the community and no one person(s) should be given ownership or controll over them.

Someone has seen Brave New World too many times methinks...
 
  • #107
Never seen it.
 
  • #108
Read it maybe?
 
  • #109
Don't even know what it is.

But I have heard the name before somewhere.
 
  • #110
Moonbear said:
Masturbation. No condom, no sex, unless it's with your wife for the purpose of procreation.
That's a little nearsighted, Moonbear, don't you think?

Not only do condoms reduce (or, in my case, almost eliminate entirely) the pleasure of sex, they're really pretty horrible for preventing pregnancy, too.

In my opinion, condoms are a last-ditch form of birth control, adequate only when you have nothing else available and just HAVE to have sex. If you're going the responsible route, get everyone tested for STDs, get on some form of effective birth control, and go at it like bunnies au natural.

- Warren
 
  • #111
chroot said:
That's a little nearsighted, Moonbear, don't you think?

Not only do condoms reduce (or, in my case, almost eliminate entirely) the pleasure of sex, they're really pretty horrible for preventing pregnancy, too.

In my opinion, condoms are a last-ditch form of birth control, adequate only when you have nothing else available and just HAVE to have sex. If you're going the responsible route, get everyone tested for STDs, get on some form of effective birth control, and go at it like bunnies au natural.

- Warren

Seriously, there is no 100% method, so condoms help prevent disease spread AND provide a barrier backup to whatever other form of birth control one is using. Their efficacy is actually pretty decent as long as they are used correctly (but should never be used without an added spermicidal jelly).

But, hey, that's just my opinion. If you don't find it any fun with a condom, then you can't sleep with me until we're married. :biggrin:
 
  • #112
Moonbear said:
But, hey, that's just my opinion. If you don't find it any fun with a condom, then you can't sleep with me until we're married. :biggrin:

Its not that its no fun with one, its just that its more fun without.
 
  • #113
Moonbear,

Condoms are only about 84% effective against pregnancy when used perfectly. Most surveys have indicated that very few people use them anywhere close to perfectly. Their realistic efficacy is probably closer to 70%. Keep in mind that these figures are the odds per year. Every single year that you use condoms, you face a 30% chance of getting pregnant.

The number of diseases that are adequately stopped by condoms is dismal. Herpes, HPV, and many other diseases require only skin exposure, not body fluid exchange, and that unavoidably happens even with condoms.

Organizations like AIM provide complete STD scans, including HIV, with a one-day turnaround. Devices like the IUD have a 99.8%+ rate of pregnancy prevention. In the face of these technologies, there really is no excuse for relying upon the condom for long-term birth control and STD prevention. In fact, I'd say doing so is irresponsible.

If your partner actually has an STD, and you use condoms, you almost assuredly will eventually contract his disease. If you frequently have sex around your ovulation, and you use condoms, you almost assuredly will eventually get pregnant.

It happened to me, with a past girlfriend.

- Warren
 
Last edited:
  • #114
Men's sexuality is wholelife,
women's sexuality declines after menopause,
so, can men Outsource their needs?
 
  • #115
chroot said:
If your partner actually has an STD, and you use condoms, you almost assuredly will eventually contract his disease. If you frequently have sex around your ovulation, and you use condoms, you almost assuredly will eventually get pregnant.- Warren

I am married and not worried about STDs, but birth control is always an issue. I know of another method besides what's been listed, which has worked perfectly for me during a total of 32 years of marriage and living together with my future mate. That method is coitus interruptus (and yes, I am fertile).

There are additional benefits to CI than just getting to avoid other birth control methods. The best is how it teaches one to control ejaculation so that if one wants to enjoy extended love making sessions, one can stay at the ready :!) and fully involved. One's lovers really appreciate that skill too. :wink:
 
  • #116
I would disagree with that. I think it would weaken any emotional relationship with the wife (regardless of whether she knows) and I'd say it's disrepectful to the entire past relationship. Sex can be used as a physical expression but in my mind I believe it has much more potential. By making sex associated with love and turning it into something more than it may logically be I think more pleasure is achievable.
 
  • #117
Les Sleeth,

You are correct that the withdrawal method is comparable to condom use in terms of effectiveness against pregnancy. That simply highlights how ineffective condoms actually are against pregnancy.

- Warren
 
  • #118
How do STD's work? After your tested are you safe to have unprotected sex - with the exception of worrying about pregnancy which I understand is never 100% preventable?
 
  • #119
Dooga,

If you can guarantee that your partner is never unfaithful, then getting tested a couple of times over a year is adequate to guarantee that you are both clean, and do not pose an STD risk to each other.

The common contrary argument is that you can't ever really know if your partner is faithful or not.

- Warren
 
  • #120
chroot said:
Les Sleeth,

You are correct that the withdrawal method is comparable to condom use in terms of effectiveness against pregnancy. That simply highlights how ineffective condoms actually are against pregnancy.

- Warren


How does that even make sense? You just put more than a few words in his mouth. he didn't say they were comparable, he said CI has worked perfectly for him. There was no comparison. And of course that works, assuming you know when to interrupt, but it has nothing to do with condoms and their effectiveness.
 
  • #121
franznietzsche said:
How does that even make sense? You just put more than a few words in his mouth. he didn't say they were comparable, he said CI has worked perfectly for him. There was no comparison. And of course that works, assuming you know when to interrupt, but it has nothing to do with condoms and their effectiveness.
That's not correct at all, franz. I'm very happy for Les Sleeth that withdrawal has worked perfectly for him, but he is just one data point. Statistically, the withdrawal method is just as lousy a contraceptive as is condom use:

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html

It really doesn't work, because preseminal fluid usually does contain sperm, just not as many as semen. It only takes one.

- Warren
 
  • #122
Just to stick up (so to speak) for my method, I don't believe it is the minute risk of pregnancy possible from preseminal fluid that drives up the statics for CI, it's individuals not having control. I have advised some couples on this who have told me they went back to other methods because too often the man had slipped "just a bit." I usually suggested two things.

One was to have the man practice feeling the very beginning of ejaculation, practice constricting the same muscle one uses to hold off urinating, and have one's partner learn to be completely still until the feeling passes. After a couple of those events, one can last for hours, and can even learn to keep oneself right on the verge of climax much of the time (that's really fun :smile:).

The other thing I recommended was when one does withdraw, have one's partner take hold! :blushing: (I don't know how else to explain it), and simulate what was going on while inside. That way the man doesn't have to lose the pleasurable sensation of being inside (i.e., and so won't resist pulling out), and one's partner can even learn techniques to make it feel even better!

I hope I've not been too graphic for the kids . . . :cool:
 
  • #123
Les Sleeth,

That's all fine and good -- just don't advocate withdrawal as an effective birth control technique, because statistically it isn't, for whatever reason. We surely don't want to be teaching the kids in our audience here that withdrawal is an acceptable method, because it surely is not -- it is not statistically not very effective against pregnancy, and, of course, it leaves the STD door wide open.

- Warren
 
  • #124
chroot said:
Les Sleeth,

That's all fine and good -- just don't advocate withdrawal as an effective birth control technique, because statistically it isn't, for whatever reason. We surely don't want to be teaching the kids in our audience here that withdrawal is an acceptable method, because it surely is not -- it is not statistically not very effective against pregnancy, and, of course, it leaves the STD door wide open.

Okie, dokie . . . I ONLY recommend CI to anyone married to a partner they trust, and to those manly men who can learn to control themselves while in the throes of passion. :smile:
 
  • #125
Chroot, there are also risks to IUD use.

Of the two forms of IUD currently available, the ones that contain copper increase menstrual bleeding and is contraindicated for those at risk of iron-deficient anemia or who already have heavy menstrual bleeding. Those that contain synthetic progestins reduce menstrual bleeding, and is actually considered a way to manage excessive bleeding, but is still contraindicated in those who have sensitivities to progestins (which also precludes oral contraceptive use).

The lifetime risk for using IUDs is lower than other forms of contraception, but quite high during the first year of use, when 5-10% of IUDs become displaced or expelled, often without being noticed by the user (especially for displacement without expulsion), which can result in accidental pregnancy (at least when a condom breaks, you know it broke and can seek emergency contraception rapidly).

Also, physicians (at least in the US) will not recommend IUDs to women who are not in a monogamous relationship. Many physicians also will not recommend IUDs to women who have never experienced a pregnancy or younger than 25 (the manufacturers of the Mirena IUD specifically caution against use in women younger than 25). Women who have never had a pregnancy are more likely to have too small of a uterus for the IUD to fit properly in order to avoid expulsion. There is one that has gone through clinical trials abroad, and that has good efficacy and somewhat better safety compared to the "framed" IUDs available in the US, which is a "mini" IUD that is designed for such women, but it is not FDA approved for use in the US; this IUD is of the copper-containing variety. There are also risks of uterine peforations (a severe side effect requiring surgical intervention), that while rare, are nonetheless a major risk if you're the unlucky one.

There are other contraindications to IUD usage, though some of them also ought to be contraindications to intercourse (such as having an STD or AIDS). Others include anything that alters the shape of the uterus or occludes part of the uterine lumen, such as fibroids, which are a very common gynecologic problem.

So while IUDs can be very effective as contraception, there are a lot of women for whom this is not an option.
 
  • #126
chroot said:
That's not correct at all, franz. I'm very happy for Les Sleeth that withdrawal has worked perfectly for him, but he is just one data point. Statistically, the withdrawal method is just as lousy a contraceptive as is condom use:

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html

It really doesn't work, because preseminal fluid usually does contain sperm, just not as many as semen. It only takes one.

- Warren

1. If done properly it works, statistically it is done improperly.

2. Now you're doing the same thing to mypost and responding to things that weren't there.
 
  • #127
chroot said:
Moonbear,

Condoms are only about 84% effective against pregnancy when used perfectly. Most surveys have indicated that very few people use them anywhere close to perfectly. Their realistic efficacy is probably closer to 70%.

I just want to point out that this contradicts the statistics you posted from the FDA. On their site, with typical (mis)usage, condoms had about a 14% failure rate (so 86% effective), and with completely correct usage, a 3% failure rate (so 97% efficacy). I assume those statistic referred to use of a condom as the sole form of contraception, and not in combination with a second form, which is the only way I would recommend their use as contraception.

You're right to caution that many, possibly most, people do not use condoms correctly.
 
  • #128
franznietzsche said:
1. If done properly it works, statistically it is done improperly.
Have fun shopping at Babies 'R' Us. :smile:

- Warren
 
  • #129
Moonbear said:
(at least when a condom breaks, you know it broke and can seek emergency contraception rapidly).
I highly doubt that most people notice when the condom breaks. Sure, the massive failures are pretty obvious, but small tears are not.
Also, physicians (at least in the US) will not recommend IUDs to women who are not in a monogamous relationship.
You mentioned that people should use condoms unless they're trying to procreate with their wife, did you not? I thought we were talking about the use of condoms in long-term monogamous relationships -- something I rail against.

- Warren
 
  • #130
Moonbear said:
I just want to point out that this contradicts the statistics you posted from the FDA.
Good catch. I have picked up statistics from many places over the years, and drawn my conclusions from them. I will see if I can find the primary sources I considered authoritative in the past.

- Warren
 
  • #131
Did my post get deleted?

I said "pull out".
 
  • #132
chroot said:
You mentioned that people should use condoms unless they're trying to procreate with their wife, did you not? I thought we were talking about the use of condoms in long-term monogamous relationships -- something I rail against.

- Warren

That's not what I meant. No wonder you nearly bit my head off! I think I was responding to Saint's questions about teens having sex, though there were so many topics intermingled last night, who knows what I really responded too. I was hardly being serious about my answers last night (at least not in this thread). I think you came in at the end of a very bizarre conversation. Geez, sorry if I confused you about that. :redface: If you're in a long-term, monogamous relationship, I don't give a rat's fiddle what you use as contraception, or even if you use contraception, as long as you and your partner both agree on it and understand the risks.
 
  • #133
chroot said:
Have fun shopping at Babies 'R' Us. :smile:

- Warren

Oooh, I love that store! Baby clothes are soooooo cute! :biggrin:
 
  • #134
chroot said:
Have fun shopping at Babies 'R' Us. :smile:

You are probably right that CI not the best recommendation for mindless climbing on and getting off (double meaning there) sex which seems to characterize how a lot of people have intercourse. But I am quite certain CI is awesomely effective for the CONSCIOUS, conscientous, attentive lover. I mean, at a website dedicated to intelligence, why recommend for the lowest common denominator?
 
  • #135
Les, you mean some folks are able to retain consciousness during the rut?!
 
  • #136
BoulderHead said:
Les, you mean some folks are able to retain consciousness during the rut?!

I just KNEW you were going to say that! :rolleyes:
 
  • #137
I know that SEX is NASTY when it is abused.
 
  • #138
Saint said:
I know that SEX is NASTY when it is abused.
Oh for goodness sake, it's always nasty! :biggrin:
 
  • #139
BoulderHead said:
Oh for goodness sake, it's always nasty! :biggrin:

:smile:

Remember, mocking is immoral!
 
  • #140
Saint said:
I know that SEX is NASTY when it is abused.

See, you haven't figured out yet that you can have fun with the silly conditioning that sex is nasty. If you have that trip programmed into you, then make it a fun game with your wife (make sure to talk to her about it first). Pretend you are wickedly enjoying what you aren't supposed to, pretend you are being bad and get off on that, have fun! Sex is nothing on the scale of existence. It means NOTHING. Find a way to enjoy it with your mate, and your marriage will get a lot more interesting overnite.
 
  • #141
Les Sleeth said:
But I am quite certain CI is awesomely effective for the CONSCIOUS, conscientous, attentive lover.
Do you have statistics to back up this assertion, or are you going to continue talking out your ass?

- Warren
 
  • #142
I think sex is just for fun.

"Physics is like sex: sure it has practical reasons, but that's not why we do it."
-Richard Feynman

Also just to note, what Les Sleeth last said is true, but it applies to guys with girlfriends too, or even just sexual friendships.
 
Last edited:
  • #143
There was a case here that a woman who sought a doctor to Tighten her vagina, because her husband had lose interest in making love with her due to her vagina is loose after being old and giving birth to several children,
unfortunately, the doctor gave her too much dose of anaesthetic,
she couldn't wake up and died.

SEX can kill a woman, beware!
 
  • #144
Yeah, Saint, that happens nearly everyday.

- Warren
 
  • #145
I'm sure I've nearly died from sex several times. Where is Humanino? I have heard that in France they colloquially call an orgasm a "little death". Is that true?
 
  • #146
I believe one type of Tantric sex involves never ejaculating nor achieving orgasm as a way to awaken consciousness. From what I read, this is a way of preserving the life energy to prolong and heighten the experience.
 
Last edited:
  • #147
I don't know if I'm just tired or older or less testosterony than I used to be, but I enjoy making love. I'm not interested in nasty sex, don't want another one night stand. I like falling in and being in love.
 
  • #148
The_Professional said:
I believe one type of Tantric sex involves never ejaculating nor achieving orgasm as a way to awaken consciousness. From what I read, this is a way of preserving the life energy to prolong and heighten the experience.


But if she doesn't orgasm i can't hear her moaning and screaming my name, and where'sthe fun in that?
 
  • #149
franznietzsche said:
But if she doesn't orgasm i can't hear her moaning and screaming my name, and where'sthe fun in that?

I didn't say it was fun :smile: when I was writing that I was thinking more on the male side holding back
 
  • #150
Ok, so she IS funny :lol:
 

Similar threads

Medical Evolution of people within a generation?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Why do we consider Neanderthals a different species than humans?
Replies
20
Views
2K
Why were wolves and dogs considered separate species until recently?
Replies
16
Views
5K
Night On Earth: Uncovering the Infrared Spectrum of Animals
Replies
14
Views
4K
Can we receive monozygotic (identical) twins in apes?
Replies
1
Views
943
How many alleles per gene the human species have today?
Replies
3
Views
3K
Usefulness of predicting species population
Replies
2
Views
2K
What fraction of genes do we share with relatives and with other species?
Replies
12
Views
5K
Are we byproduct of cell's survival scheme?
Replies
16
Views
3K
Why Does Species Stratification Occur in Biology?
Replies
21
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top