Let's talk: What is the actual purpose of sex?

For humans, sex is not merely a biological function for the purpose of procreation as it is for animals. It is a psycological, moral, and I would add spiritual experience that should be reserved for a lifelong committed (as in married) man and woman. When the unitive, procreative and pleasurable experience are separated from the act it no longer has meaning. (Babies do not always have to result from the act, in fact that's not even possible, so let's focus on the fact it's meant to unite 2 people for life and is not intended to be an arbitrary once and done deal with random individuals not committed to stay together for life)

At best the assertion that sex is meant to unite two people for life is a prematurely drawn conclusion, and at worst an altogether false premise. Either way, beginning a debate with a conclusion stated as fact doesn't leave much room for discussion.

I suppose I could cite examples where the "unite 2 people for life" part doesn't hold up to scrutiny (married couples that grow apart over time, hobbyists, various configurations of people living "the lifestyle").

I'm really thrown by "When the unitive, procreative and pleasurable experience are separated from the act it no longer has meaning." This is immediately followed by a statement to the effect that sex needn't/can't always be procreative. I'd also posit that, at least for the man, if the experience of sex isn't pleasurable then you're not doing it right. As for pinning meaning for sex on forecasting a rosy fate for a particular couplehood in perpetuity, I say 1) nobody knows what the future holds; 2) being mindfully immersed in the present heightens sensory experience far more than projecting or future-tripping, and 3) attachment is the root of all suffering.

"Either way, beginning a debate with a conclusion stated as fact doesn't leave much room for discussion"

Debates always allow for one side to state their position and the other to give the opposing rebuttal, is that not how you debate?

I give my position on the purpose of sex:

1. It is for pleasure- if one person isn't getting pleasure from it then at worst it becomes abuse such as happens with rape. At best communication between the 2 people is necessary to root out why one or both are not enjoying it.
But pleasure isn't the primary nor sole purpose

2. It is for procreation- without it our species would cease to exist, it is how 2 people in expressing their love and commitment can share this love with another, a fruit of that love which is a baby and the reason we have families. Again not the primary, nor sole purpose. (Fertility and capability or desire of getting pregnant is another discussion)

3. It is intended to biologically and psychologically unite a man and a woman which science indicates thrive more when it is a lifelong, committed monogamous relationship. (homosexual attractions, polyamory and such is another facet that we can discuss, probably in another post 😊)

Which of these if any do you disagree with? Each of these could spiral into several different posts so let's pick apart each, one at a time if you wish and see where it goes.

And these are not just my opinion, it's a reality that has existed for thousands of years possibly since the arrival of man and has stood the test of time. I wouldn't categorize it as an immature conclusion.

I guess I feel the opening stance of "let's talk about this fact" isn't an invitation to a debate so much as a discussion, or more aptly an "interactive lecture". I mean, if the only correct answer was established millennia ago, what's to debate?

People debate God's existence right? You can agree or disagree on basically anything that might have an objective understanding especially one as multi faceted as this topic. I try to use simple logic in most of my arguments that might not have definitive answers. You can't really debate the existence of gravity however. So do you agree or disagree on the 3 purposes of sex I've posed here? What do you think is it's purpose?

I agree with the first and second points. The third is a bit of a philosophical goulash. I guess if you constrain the subject to "sex between two people with the theoretical potential to produce offspring" (i.e. no groups, no homo) and count relationships that are committed at the time sex takes place (so the 7th husband/wife is as much a "lifetime committed monogamous partner" as the first 6 husbands/wives at the time), and we ignore couples like Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn who famously did NOT get married and whose relationship has outlasted many marriages (like Al Gore's, for example), then that still leaves the question of intent.

Not only is it problematic to establish with certainty that there was "intent", so what if there was? I void warranties by ignoring the user manual all the time. Why? Because even when the instruction is in my own best interest, I don't like being told what to do. I like exploring things on my own terms, to get my own experience, reach my own conclusions and attain my own wisdom. Vicarious wisdom is ersatz wisdom. I prefer mine first hand, straight from the source: my own actions and observation of the resulting consequences.

Ok. Wise Jedi. What did I say?

I promised I wouldn’t troll but old habits die hard. You said that sex was intended to be between a man and a woman and that offended my delicate San Francisco sensibilities. J.E.D.I. Is an acronym for justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. It was a double entendre because J.E.D.I. is an old term extreme wokeists believe should not be used because the Jedi (the ones from Star Wars) are racist, ableist eugenicists. Clearly if you have to explain a joke this much is wasn’t funny to begin with.

I was going to comment on the meme but my comment was going to be the first two points you made in your convo with SaintRanger. I agree with your third point but I wonder if that is because it is universally true or because we live in a culture that is based on Christian values.

Ah, hit post beforeI commented.

I didn't know about that acronym and I'm sorry for ruining your joke.

Interesting that you'd agree on my 3rd point because that seems to be the one people have the most hangup on or should I say hookup, wink wink. It is probably a value emphasized more by Christians but there are studies that show monogamous long term relationships (with the right person) is better for overall health and well-being than jumping person to person and never committing.

Well the only person I’ve ever had sex with is my wife. So when you say that a monogamous lifestyle is better for overall health my confirmation bias is happy to hear it. I have seen a few studies that say two parent households have better outcomes than single parent households. I have also heard of cultures where parenting is more of a communal duty and sexual relationships are more open (between the adults). Who can say which culture is better? … I can, it’s ours because ‘merica.

Cat kid

The first rule of comedy is know your audience. Just because a joke fails to land doesn't mean it wasn't funny. It just means its audience in that moment was you...sort of an inside joke for 1 if you will. Not the joke's fault no one else got it.

The yoda threw me off. Actually writing J.E.D.I in the joke would have given me pause and would have not taken the comment literally. I guess I failed the woke test. Oh darn. 😉

I didn't get it either. But as long as one person thinks it's funny, it is, even if that person is the one telling it.

Besides, you know what they say: laugh and the world laughs with you, unless you laugh alone. Then the world looks at you like you're crazy. (Or something like that.)

That’s kind of you to say

I happen to think the jedi reference was clever af, even though it was lost on me until you explained it. But the important thing is whether or not YOU thought it was funny. The late Norm Macdonald used to do entire sets that he knew would bomb, just because he thought the material was funny and didn't care what the audience thought. (I actually find that funny, which adds a whole other dimension to the meaning of comedy, if not humor in general.)

Using vegetables as d**dos and bragging about on a website for kids?

"It's a catholic thing"

It's rather telling that that's where your mind went. I'm not sure what your problem is, but it goes a bit deeper than your beef with this post.

Kevdex seems very hostile to Christians, especially Catholics, and enjoys being an asshole to them. It has a whole stream dedicated to it called freethinkers; ironically, it seems to just reposts from r/athiesim.

He frequently accuses me of pedophilia, so this is no less than what I would expect from him. Unfortunately. He seems like a very intelligent individual who loves debates. A slight attitude change and he'd be a great addition to the stream.

Testosterone is liquid anger, and young men are full of it. Sometimes trolling is a fun way to vent. The process of growing into our adult selves is usually messy and fraught, and not just for the individual doing the growing.

Part of me was reminded of myself. "Aww, I remember what an unselfconsciously toxic, smarmy, condescending, tedious, loathsome, insatiable ideological snob I used to be!"

The rest of me was like "yeah, I'm content to leave that asshole 20 years in the past where he belongs. I'm not trying to revisit the mistakes of my youth."

I can't be mad at him. Don't know whether he had an oppressively religious upbringing or a non-religious upbringing, but the incredulity, frustration and contempt certainly are very familiar. Dude is sharp, probably top 2% intellectually, with a corresponding lack of emotional maturity. He'll likely grow out of this and look back years from now with bemusement. Could be wrong, that's just my hot take.

He's a basic troll, usually visiting random streams to get into debates with users for the purpose of calling them liars and otherwise insulting them for having opinions different from his own. He's on a permanent comment timer until his behavior improves. And yes he especially hates Christians possibly for some past trauma he experienced. I don't know the source of all the vitriol.

My assessment is based on like 10 minutes of perusing his recent comments and posts. It is possible that he won't outgrow the compulsion to spread bile, but it's doubtful. I noted a logical consistency in the comment chains I read, which suggests the trolling is a vehicle rather than an end unto itself. It took me a loooong time to internalize the fact that people can't be browbeaten into agreement, and that pushing people away is more likely to further entrench them in their current thinking than it is to sway it.

Regardless of the motivation the fury is sincere, and that level of passion is a young person's game. It takes an incredible amount of energy to be angry all the time, and I don't need to tell you how much more energy kids have compared to adults.