"The reason we have sexual desire is to make children."

[SirMetalhead]

So in the latest Miley Cyrus video Stef did, These 2 recurring assertions Stef makes came up.

 

"The reason we have sexual desire is to make children."

"Sexuality is a big person's game that makes real people."

 

I think it's about time I open up discussion about this, as statements like these upset me a lot, as someone who not only does not want kids, but is also bisexual.  So when I heard him say sexual desire is for children, I think "Really?  Even between the same sex?"  I already feel I'm in the minority here on FDR because I don't want kids.  I kind of feel like there are people, particularly Stef, who look down or perhaps feel they need to interrogate those who choose not to have kids, especially when he pulls shaming tactics like "X years of evolution dies with me" or "Not having kids is kind of selfish".  I don't shame people who want to have kids from doing so.  If you're up to it and decide the benefits outweigh the costs, I support and respect your decision.  I would actually argue that those who want kids should be questioned thoroughly, instead of those who don't, as not having kids requires no action, whereas having kids does "make real people", who will suffer should you make poor choices in life.

 

Obviously, it's undeniable that (unprotected) sex leads to children.  My qualm though, is with people who say it's ONLY for having children, despite sex having other benefits and pleasures.  So just with that, it's obvious that sex is not JUST for having kids.  Now, what would really be more accurate would be to say "Sex is primarily for having kids.", to which I say, "Yes, definitely."  

 

I hope I've made some valid points and haven't blarped too much.  Now, what do you all have to say on this topic?  I suppose you could call this thread half personal qualm, half open debate.  

[Libertus]

The reason why we have sexual desire is to have children, and that is also the reason (as in "cause and effect") why it's pleasurable - that's just a factual statement and does not imply a moral judgement. I hope that helps.

[SirMetalhead]

I'm sorry, but it doesn't help.  I know I don't want kids, and am bi, yet I desire sex, and also am sure I will find that sex pleasurable.  Is the reason homosexuals have sexual desire/pleasure for having kids?  I understand if you're talking about generalities, not exceptions, but at least acknowledge so.  That's why I say it's more accurate to say sexual desire is PRIMARILY for children, not ONLY.  I hope this isn't coming across as a mean/malevolent response, but I must be honest.

[Agalloch]

1. I agree the wording is a little unfortunate, but that isn't Stef's fault, it's very common in evolutionary biology to say that the "reason" for X trait is Y, where Y is very often procreation. More correct I suppose they mean the reason for X is that any species not having X trait died out, usually because of lack of procreation, or that it's not a reason, but the evolutionary cause of. However, I think the meaning was still clear enough.

 

2. Stef didn't say "The reason we have a desire to make children", he said "The reason we have sexual desire". Having a lack of desire to make children has no bearing on any of this at all. We haven't had any evolution since the invention of birth control, and so even a bisexual with sexual desire, but without the desire to have children, could quite easily find themselves with a child as far as our genes "know" (where they don't really know, as per point 1, they just exist because it's taken as a given). If lack of desire for children is purely genetic - I will probably later make the point that that's also an incorrect assumption - then it's possible that in 100 or so generations, people with a lack of desire for children will die out because of education and birth control. That doesn't mean human sexual desire didn't evolve successfully in order to produce children though, because that's the reason for almost every single human trait.

 

3. Even if Stef had said that ("The reason we have a desire to make children"), it'd be correct. It's a species trait, he said the reason we, not the reason you, or bisexuals, or anybody else. The reason we have canines is (as far as I know) is to chew meat. Not chewing meat doesn't make that not a species trait, because other species traits include a brain (the prefrontal cortex I believe) which allows deviation from genetics and the ability to adapt our personalities and desires in a single generation due to circumstances, both genetically (epigenetically) and psychologically.

 

4. People having sexual desire is a genetic trait. It's quite possible that not wanting children, and being bisexual are not hereditary. If a mutation (obviously I'm not necessarily calling either of those things mutations, I don't know, it's an analogy) causes someone to be born without the aforementioned canines, it doesn't mean that the species doesn't grow them as a standard trait and that the evolutionary cause was our need to eat meat.

[SirMetalhead]

1. I agree the wording is a little unfortunate, but that isn't Stef's fault, it's very common in evolutionary biology to say that the "reason" for X trait is Y, where Y is very often procreation. More correct I suppose they mean the reason for X is that any species not having X trait died out, usually because of lack of procreation, or that it's not a reason, but the evolutionary cause of. However, I think the meaning was still clear enough.

 

2. Stef didn't say "The reason we have a desire to make children", he said "The reason we have sexual desire". Having a lack of desire to make children has no bearing on any of this at all. We haven't had any evolution since the invention of birth control, and so even a bisexual with sexual desire, but without the desire to have children, could quite easily find themselves with a child as far as our genes "know" (where they don't really know, as per point 1, they just exist because it's taken as a given). If lack of desire for children is purely genetic - I will probably later make the point that that's also an incorrect assumption - then it's possible that in 100 or so generations, people with a lack of desire for children will die out because of education and birth control. That doesn't mean human sexual desire didn't evolve successfully in order to produce children though, because that's the reason for almost every single human trait.

 

3. Even if Stef had said that ("The reason we have a desire to make children"), it'd be correct. It's a species trait, he said the reason we, not the reason you, or bisexuals, or anybody else. The reason we have canines is (as far as I know) is to chew meat. Not chewing meat doesn't make that not a species trait, because other species traits include a brain (the prefrontal cortex I believe) which allows deviation from genetics and the ability to adapt our personalities and desires in a single generation due to circumstances, both genetically (epigenetically) and psychologically.

 

4. People having sexual desire is a genetic trait. It's quite possible that not wanting children, and being bisexual are not hereditary. If a mutation (obviously I'm not necessarily calling either of those things mutations, I don't know, it's an analogy) causes someone to be born without the aforementioned canines, it doesn't mean that the species doesn't grow them as a standard trait and that the evolutionary cause was our need to eat meat.

Thank you, Agalloch!  This is more helpful to me.  I will re-read your 4 points multiple times, so that I can fully understand, but even now, I understand better than before.  So in a way, it is one of those deals about in general, not exceptions.  Your number 3 point I do like.  Describing this as a species trait makes more sense to me, and makes more sense why Stef would use the wording he did.

[AncapFTW]

I've always found Stef to have a bit of a mental hangup when it comes to kids, and have said so in the comments of several of his videos. This is likely because he is a stay at home dad, and is therefore around kids all of the time.

People saying "humans haven't evolved since inventing birth control" miss that only on specific kind of sex can lead to children.

[green banana]

For higher social primates, sex has a number of functions. It can be used to show domination, for submission, to regulate conflicts, and last not least, fun. One of the reason why human sexuality is so diverse can be explained by the fact that we have both traits from pair bonding as well as tournament species. 

[AncapFTW]

So in the latest Miley Cyrus video Stef did, These 2 recurring assertions Stef makes came up.

 

"The reason we have sexual desire is to make children."

"Sexuality is a big person's game that makes real people."

 

I think it's about time I open up discussion about this, as statements like these upset me a lot, as someone who not only does not want kids, but is also bisexual.  So when I heard him say sexual desire is for children, I think "Really?  Even between the same sex?"  I already feel I'm in the minority here on FDR because I don't want kids.  I kind of feel like there are people, particularly Stef, who look down or perhaps feel they need to interrogate those who choose not to have kids, especially when he pulls shaming tactics like "X years of evolution dies with me" or "Not having kids is kind of selfish".  I don't shame people who want to have kids from doing so.  If you're up to it and decide the benefits outweigh the costs, I support and respect your decision.  I would actually argue that those who want kids should be questioned thoroughly, instead of those who don't, as not having kids requires no action, whereas having kids does "make real people", who will suffer should you make poor choices in life.

 

Obviously, it's undeniable that (unprotected) sex leads to children.  My qualm though, is with people who say it's ONLY for having children, despite sex having other benefits and pleasures.  So just with that, it's obvious that sex is not JUST for having kids.  Now, what would really be more accurate would be to say "Sex is primarily for having kids.", to which I say, "Yes, definitely."  

 

I hope I've made some valid points and haven't blarped too much.  Now, what do you all have to say on this topic?  I suppose you could call this thread half personal qualm, half open debate.  

I find it strange that he says that you owe it to you ancestors to have kids, and that it's selfish to not want kids.  Sounds an awful lot like a social contract to me.  Somehow I owe something to someone without having a say in it or whether I got what they were giving me.

 

Also, the idea that it's both immoral to have a kid if you can't afford it and not want kids sound like a bit of a Catch 22.  The only moral coarse is to contribute everything you can to earn as much as you can, then give it all to your children, apparently.

 

Also, only one form of sex (hetero vaginal sex between fertile people) can even produce children, so saying that sex is just for making kids is a very limited way to look at it.

[SirMetalhead]

For higher social primates, sex has a number of functions. It can be used to show domination, for submission, to regulate conflicts, and last not least, fun. One of the reason why human sexuality is so diverse can be explained by the fact that we have both traits from pair bonding as well as tournament species. 

Yes, GB, I agree.  That makes sense.

[Libertus]

Is the reason homosexuals have sexual desire/pleasure for having kids?

Again, "reason"... that's not precise language. We weren't "created" for a "reason". We evolved. Your sexual pleasure centers, hormones, other ornamentation evolved as a mechanism of reproduction. It's a fact, not a moral judgement, so how can you possibly take it personal?

 

I say it's more accurate to say sexual desire is PRIMARILY for children, not ONLY.

Again "x is for y" is vague language. Are you making a moral judgement, as in "it's OK to use your parts for something else besides reproduction?" yeah sure. I don't know / don't care. That's why I was trying to convey in my response that I mean "cause and effect", not "thou shalt".

 

All I'm saying is, that from a biological, evolutionary standpoint, sex is pleasurable because pleasure encourages reproduction. It doesn't even have anything to do with bi / gay sex. I use condoms - but the sex is still pleasurable. Just because I'm mimicking / tricking my pleasure centers doesn't change what they were there for. They have no other "purpose" as in "they evolutionary evolved as a survival strategy". When you're having gay sex you're tricking your brain into thinking you're engaging in a reproductive act. It's the same as in masturbation.

 

The same goes for pain. Pain evolved as a mechanism to prevent and alert on injury. But then again, some people derive pleasure from pain. Does that change anything? I don't think so.

 

Our tastebuds evolved to detect sugary fruit and make it "taste well" so we get our vitamins. I hope this clears it up.

 

Edit: one more thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

[SirMetalhead]

Thanks for your response, Libertus, and the link.  I appreciate it.  This is helpful in clearing things up, and I realize I was taking a lot of this personally.  I'm sorry.

[LovePrevails]

Would "the evolutionary function of sexuality is for us to have children" be more acceptable Derek?

 

I accept that the drive is there in nature for having children, but that doesn't mean that we don't get to enjoy that drive in other ways - I don't intend on having children any time soon but that's not going to stop me enjoying making love to my partner.

 

The drive to eat is for nutrition but we get pleasure out of it in lots of other ways and that has become a natural and wonderful parts of out life, culture, social events, and so forth

 

let me know what you think

[Mister Mister]

Yes, I don't think you have to apologize SMH, you were honest about your emotional reaction to this, which probably many people share.  Understand also, that when Stef says these things, it's directed at certain swaths of the population engaged in very irresponsible hyper-sexuality.  I do think it would be worthwhile to talk to Stef about this, I would enjoy the conversation.

[SirMetalhead]

Would "the evolutionary function of sexuality is for us to have children" be more acceptable Derek?

 

I accept that the drive is there in nature for having children, but that doesn't mean that we don't get to enjoy that drive in other ways - I don't intend on having children any time soon but that's not going to stop me enjoying making love to my partner.

 

The drive to eat is for nutrition but we get pleasure out of it in lots of other ways and that has become a natural and wonderful parts of out life, culture, social events, and so forth

 

let me know what you think

Yes, Anthony, that is more acceptable.  I accept, as well, that sexual drive in nature/naturally is for having children.  I also must say that AncapFTW has a good point about only one type of sex (heterosexual vaginal sex) leading to having kids, and I think that was one of my main qualms.  But, I have accepted that I was making a fallacy, as well as taking this personally. 

 

I appreciate everyone's input on this.  I felt like I needed this kind of discussion instead of just letting it keep bothering me.

[LovePrevails]

there is no reason without a reasoner, the intention of the original statement approximates the statement I made

[WasatchMan]

The reason I have a nose is to smell and filter air I breath, if I decided that my nose was also a good hole to put cocaine would that change the reason I have a nose?

[AncapFTW]

Hair evolved to keep us warm in cold environments.  Not wanting to use your hair to keep warm is immoral.  Trimming your hair is immoral, as it is contrary to how we evolved.  Using clothing to keep warm is basically the same as having sex that isn't for reproduction, and don't even get me started on fur or wool clothing, as it's practically bestiality.

[WasatchMan]

Hair evolved to keep us warm in cold environments.  Not wanting to use your hair to keep warm is immoral.  Trimming your hair is immoral, as it is contrary to how we evolved.  Using clothing to keep warm is basically the same as having sex that isn't for reproduction, and don't even get me started on fur or wool clothing, as it's practically bestiality.

 

What does biological function have to do with morality?

[Matt D]

I think one of the reasons this question is so emotionally volatile is that lurking behind this question is the question of unwanted pregnancies & abortion. I don't necessarily want to open up that topic here, but do others agree this is why there is a moral tint to the original statement made by stef, specifically that it's a "big person's game"?

[AncapFTW]

What does biological function have to do with morality?

I don't know, but some people seem to think that if it's use is "unnatural" in their minds, then it's immoral.  And that's what the original post was about.

[hannahbanana]

 

 

I appreciate everyone's input on this.  I felt like I needed this kind of discussion instead of just letting it keep bothering me.

I know I'm not even really involved in this thread but I'm really glad to see that you feel satisfied by this conversation. It's discussions like these that are really important to have because it helps us to communicate clearly and come out better for it on the other side. Idk, it just makes me happy to see positive interactions even when they start out with possible conflict.

[J. D. Stembal]

Has anyone experienced severe sexual trauma? It's hard to live a normal life loving others when the very act of loving yourself brings thoughts of shame.

[Archimedes]

I don't think we just have sex to reproduce. Our body shares many characteristics with primates that use sex to establish hierarchy (chimps) or for social bonding (bonobos). Like chimps and bonobos, the humans has about 1000 orgasms per fertilization. Gorillas and Gibbons use sex mainly for reproduction and they have a lower number of orgasm per fertilization. I think a healthy reason why humans have sex besides reproduction is  to strengthen the relationship with their romantic partner. There are also another reasons. For example a prostitute may have sex to profit from it economically. I also think that our behavior with contraceptions shows, that humans have a desire to experience sex without it leading to reproduction.

[J. D. Stembal]

I don't think we just have sex to reproduce. Our body shares many characteristics with primates that use sex to establish hierarchy (chimps) or for social bonding (bonobos). Like chimps and bonobos, the humans has about 1000 orgasms per fertilization. Gorillas and Gibbons use sex mainly for reproduction and they have a lower number of orgasm per fertilization. I think a healthy reason why humans have sex besides reproduction is  to strengthen the relationship with their romantic partner. There are also another reasons. For example a prostitute may have sex to profit from it economically. I also think that our behavior with contraceptions shows, that humans have a desire to experience sex without it leading to reproduction.

 

Another FDR member has actually read Sex at Dawn? I'm stunned!

[Archimedes]

Hey, it has a dirty premise. I couldn't resist.   

[SirMetalhead]

I don't think we just have sex to reproduce. Our body shares many characteristics with primates that use sex to establish hierarchy (chimps) or for social bonding (bonobos). Like chimps and bonobos, the humans has about 1000 orgasms per fertilization. Gorillas and Gibbons use sex mainly for reproduction and they have a lower number of orgasm per fertilization. I think a healthy reason why humans have sex besides reproduction is  to strengthen the relationship with their romantic partner. There are also another reasons. For example a prostitute may have sex to profit from it economically. I also think that our behavior with contraceptions shows, that humans have a desire to experience sex without it leading to reproduction.

Yes, very good points, Archimedes!  

I know I'm not even really involved in this thread but I'm really glad to see that you feel satisfied by this conversation. It's discussions like these that are really important to have because it helps us to communicate clearly and come out better for it on the other side. Idk, it just makes me happy to see positive interactions even when they start out with possible conflict.

Thanks!  

[WasatchMan]

I don't think we just have sex to reproduce. Our body shares many characteristics with primates that use sex to establish hierarchy (chimps) or for social bonding (bonobos). Like chimps and bonobos, the humans has about 1000 orgasms per fertilization. Gorillas and Gibbons use sex mainly for reproduction and they have a lower number of orgasm per fertilization. I think a healthy reason why humans have sex besides reproduction is  to strengthen the relationship with their romantic partner. There are also another reasons. For example a prostitute may have sex to profit from it economically. I also think that our behavior with contraceptions shows, that humans have a desire to experience sex without it leading to reproduction.

 

Wouldn't you say that sexuality being intertwined into hierarchical or social behavior traits as just evolution in action, where sexuality is able to drive behavior towards social conditions that drive towards an optimal condition for gene survival? 

 

I don't see how this is a case against the premise that sex is for reproduction, I see this argument as strengthening the case. 

 

Sex is so intertwined in reproduction that it drives natural selection towards behavior traits that are beneficial to the gene pool.

[Archimedes]

Wouldn't you say that sexuality being intertwined into hierarchical or social behavior traits as just evolution in action, where sexuality is able to drive behavior towards social conditions that drive towards an optimal condition for gene survival? 

 

I don't see how this is a case against the premise that sex is for reproduction, I see this argument as strengthening the case. 

 

Sex is so intertwined in reproduction that it drives natural selection towards behavior traits that are beneficial to the gene pool.

 

Interesting argument. How do you explain homosexuality, though? Bonobos use homosexuality frequently to establish social standng. Homosexual people still like to have sex in order to strengthen their relationship.

[WasatchMan]

Interesting argument. How do you explain homosexuality, though? Bonobos use homosexuality frequently to establish social standng. Homosexual people still like to have sex in order to strengthen their relationship.

 

But they (bonobos) are using sexuality to establish social standing so they get access to reproduction. Homosexuals are just using sexuality for a purpose our genes may not have intended.  This doesn't make them wrong though.

 

There seems to be the argument in here that sex can be used for other purposes than reproduction.  Nobody disagrees with this argument .  Homer Simpson can use a hand gun to open a can a beer, does that mean that the purpose of a hand gun is no longer self defense? Biological purpose is different than functionality.  Things can have many legitimate uses, this doesn't change their biological purpose.

 

I think one of the problems people are having with this this question is with premises.  I think some take "purpose" to be a meaning of life question (why are we here/what should we do/what is right/what is wrong), and others interpret purpose as a biological question.  If we think deeper about the biological purpose argument and what that really means you can understand why people are having such a hard time understanding why anyone would try to claim that the purpose of sex is not for reproduction.  This is because biologically speaking, you are basically making a tautology and then claiming it not to be true.  Biology holds the premise that nature has designed life for the purpose of creating life.  Biology would even go as far as saying the meaning of your life, your purpose for existence in the first place, is to replicate your genes through reproducing.

 

Does this make it immoral to have fun with sexual organs?  I don't think so.  But it is important to keep into perspective that we are in fact animals that exist through a evolutionary process of gene replication that has naturally selected out the best genes for survival to live in a given environment - and that this fact does impact our physiological and psychological make-up.

[Archimedes]

 

But they (bonobos) are using sexuality to establish social standing so they get access to reproduction. Homosexuals are just using sexuality for a purpose our genes may not have intended.  This doesn't make them wrong though.

 

 

How do you know the purpose of genes? Have you asked them?

 

 

There seems to be the argument in here that sex can be used for other purposes than reproduction.  Nobody disagrees with this argument .  Homer Simpson can use a hand gun to open a can a beer, does that mean that the purpose of a hand gun is no longer self defense? Biological purpose is different than functionality.  Things can have many legitimate uses, this doesn't change their biological purpose.

 

How do you determine what the biological purpose is? Homosexuals are programmed to be attracted to the same sex. They experience urges to have sex with people of the same gender. It's not like they are attracted to the opposite gender, but choose to only have sex with people of the same gender. Yes, they may experience a desire for reproduction. But in this case they have to either mate with a person they are not attracted to or engage in a process that doesn't involve sex, in order to produce a child. So how could you say that the biological purpose of sex in homosexuals is still reproduction?

 

I think one of the problems people are having with this this question is with premises.  I think some take "purpose" to be a meaning of life question (why are we here/what should we do/what is right/what is wrong), and others interpret purpose as a biological question.  If we think deeper about the biological purpose argument and what that really means you can understand why people are having such a hard time understanding why anyone would try to claim that the purpose of sex is not for reproduction.  This is because biologically speaking, you are basically making a tautology and then claiming it not to be true.  Biology holds the premise that nature has designed life for the purpose of creating life.  Biology would even go as far as saying the meaning of your life, your purpose for existence in the first place, is to replicate your genes through reproducing.

 

Biology definies sex as the sexual connection per vaginam between male and female. Of course, if you base your conclusions on this definition, then yes, the biologal purpose of sex is reproduction. But you also have to ignore other forms of sex, like oral sex and anal sex between heterosexuals, all forms of sex between homosexuals and deviant forms of sex like pedophilia. That's the problem of biology. It's a theory that  ignores certain parts of empirical data about human and animal sexual behavior. That's probably because it is largley based on the findings of Darwin, which he had published during a time of severe sexual repression. That's why it gets challenged by guys like Chris Ryan. Because how can you talk about the purpose of sex, if you just focus on one aspect of it?

 

 

Does this make it immoral to have fun with sexual organs?  I don't think so.  But it is important to keep into perspective that we are in fact animals that exist through a evolutionary process of gene replication that has naturally selected out the best genes for survival to live in a given environment - and that this fact does impact our physiological and psychological make-up.

 

 

Just because we are caught up in this game, doesn't mean the purpose of sex is just reproduction.

 

[J. D. Stembal]

I have had sex thousands of times vaginally and never sired a bastard (to my knowledge).

 

Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a single sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate!

[AccuTron]

Our eyes evolved to see food and shelter and predators.  If we use them now to go to an art gallery, it's no conflict.

[SirMetalhead]

I think one of the reasons this question is so emotionally volatile is that lurking behind this question is the question of unwanted pregnancies & abortion. I don't necessarily want to open up that topic here, but do others agree this is why there is a moral tint to the original statement made by stef, specifically that it's a "big person's game"?

Yes, good point, Matt D, I agree.