The Nature and Purpose of Human Sexuality

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Prussian Blew
Reproduction and that is IT!

No fun.

No playing.

Nothing spiritual about it.

Just makin' babies.

AMEN.

I have wrote that sex can be fun and between two people who love each other it is the most intense intimacy, and indeed vulnerability, you will face outside of airport security……..

BUT it’s point is procreation, that’s why you have the urge in the first place.

[Lutiferre]

I think it is a false dilemma to put up a division between the unitive potentiality inherent and fundamental to human sexuality (in uniting man and woman in love) and the generative potentiality, the giving of life that is it's ultimate end (reproduction). It only shows that life and love are inherently connected, and life is the result of love. These two aspects, love and life are part of one whole, whose separation and isolation leads to perversion, and leads for instance, to the love-part to be replaced by (unloving and careless) lust.

[anonymaus]

The reason in nature is to reproduce, a sex drive is simply beneficial from a evolutionary view point.

This.

Also, it's for whatever I want and no sexless puritanical quaker is going to convince me otherwise.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre
I think it is a false dilemma to put up a division between the unitive potentiality inherent and fundamental to human sexuality (in uniting man and woman in love) and the generative potentiality, the giving of life that is it's ultimate end (reproduction). It only shows that life and love are inherently connected, and life is the result of love. These two aspects, love and life are part of one whole, whose separation and isolation leads to perversion, and leads for instance, to the love-part to be replaced by (unloving, careless and irresponsible) lust.

That’s why I don’t agree with promiscuous behaviour, I don’t agree with abortions either (except if a women’s life is in danger) and, personally, I find both immoral. Call me "quaker" or "puritan" if you like, rest assured I don't give a damn and I'll get over it.

I also agree that to divide love from the sexual act is harmful; it degrades both the act and the partner. Sexual acts don’t need to be penetrative nor do they necessarily lead to pregnancy, but the sexual urge is one designed to facilitate procreation (and personally I can’t think of anything more spiritual or intimate than bringing life into the world).

Unfortunately we live in a society where you’re positively pushed into sex as young as possible and where there is a “quick fix” for your own lack of responsibility.

[Octothorpe]

Now, the psychology of human fetishes and obsessions would be interesting:icon_yawn:.

Some of that is purely neurological. For example: foot fetishes. The neurological mapping for awareness of and control over one's feet is amazingly close in location to the mapping for sexual arousal. When developmental damages (physical, chemical, et cetera) cause a shifting of neurological networks, the two can easily overap, causing one to be sexually aroused by feet.

Others are much harder to track, as they seem to be purely mental in nature, often being caused by traumatic events in childhood or early adolescence.

[Loddfafner]

I'll bet the percentage of human sex acts that have procreation as the goal is vanishingly small and that outcome is even generally avoided. The actual purposes could range from love to hate, meditation to defiance, transgression to conformity, playfulness to fulfilling duty, conflict to conciliation, pity, generosity, tension release, vengeance, adoration, admiration, contempt, showing off, domination, submission, communication, bonding, exercise... and on and on and on.

Even evolutionarily speaking, procreation is just one of the natural facts that sustain it. Many traits evolve to have multiple purposes, and with humans it is likely to be related to group formation, maintenance of hierarchies, etc.

[Lutiferre]

Some of that is purely neurological. For example: foot fetishes. The neurological mapping for awareness of and control over one's feet is amazingly close in location to the mapping for sexual arousal. When developmental damages (physical, chemical, et cetera) cause a shifting of neurological networks, the two can easily overap, causing one to be sexually aroused by feet.

Maybe in the case of extreme fetisches.

But it is overly reductionistic to pretend that this is valid for all cases; when it is something something that has a multitude of differentiated cases and potential causes.

If it isn't an extreme case of a fetisch, but more like a "preference", then it is more likely that the person has developed an aesthetic, a natural admiration of the given body part (like feet, or noses, or eyes, or any body part).

And even if it is extreme, the causes can be complex, but are often more emotional than purely neurological (e.g. also work on a higher level).

Others are much harder to track, as they seem to be purely mental in nature, often being caused by traumatic events in childhood or early adolescence.

Again, pop-psychology and reductionism. Your explanation is not necessarily true, as there can be many complex causes.

Even evolutionarily speaking, procreation is just one of the natural facts that sustain it. Many traits evolve to have multiple purposes, and with humans it is likely to be related to group formation, maintenance of hierarchies, etc.

It is not a coincidence that biologists call the faculties associated with it the reproductive system. Whatever the psychologically motivating factor, reproduction is certainly the prime end for which it developed.

[Loddfafner]

Whatever the psychologically motivating factor, reproduction is certainly the prime end for which it developed.

Just because reproduction is its prime end does not mean that everyone should be obliged to restrict it to that end. The tail evolved primarily to help fish swim. Descendants of fish have found a wide range of other uses for tails such as swatting flies, expressing emotion, keeping balance, distracting predators, attracting mates, and so on.

[Lutiferre]

Just because reproduction is its prime end does not mean that anyone should be obliged to restrict it to that end.

No, just like you are not strictly obliged to use your liver or any other organ, for the purposes which they serve and function within the human body; or the eyes for seeing, or the ears for hearing. Denying the reproductive system involved in human sexuality its reproductive end is ultimately as good as it is to deny the liver its detoxifying or biosynthesizing ends, and is ultimately a dysgenic perversion which leads to extinction.

[Loddfafner]

Those who insist that everyone should follow the most narrow guidelines of a constricted view of nature should live entirely as they preach and stop using technology to cheat in the struggle for existence. If they want to escape the charge of hypocrisy they must restrict their diet to what they can find in the wild and only use their fists, sticks, and stones to defend against predators, and allow any disease no matter how severe to take its course without medical treatment. They must ensure that their every sexual act leads to a birth and that the mother receives no medical assistance with that birth.