How can it elude the top minds of academia that the purpose of sex is reproduction?

submitted by [deleted] from self.whatever

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Would you ban sterile women or men with low sperm counts from sex? I imagine they still have a biological sex drive that would cause psychological problems if unfulfilled

[–]jet199Instigatrix 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

This is a very strange strawman.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

How is this a strawman? OP explicity states that any sex for pleasure and not reproduction is deviant, and comparable to a mental illness like an eating disorder. This would apply to anyone even practicing birth control. Wore a condom? Deviant. Birth control pills? You are mentally ill

How can it elude the top minds of academia that the purpose of sex is reproduction?

Any behavior that contradicts this purpose is logically dysfunctional, akin to eating for pleasure alone.

I am directly addressing the claim in question here - that there is something inherently wrong with having sex when reproduction isn't the motivation for it. I don't see how you can say this is strawman fallacy

[–]jet199Instigatrix 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Is eating for pleasure alone deviant now?

You are arguing with yourself.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Is eating for pleasure alone deviant now?

Yes that is literally what OP said, here it is AGAIN.

Any behavior that contradicts this purpose is logically dysfunctional, akin to eating for pleasure alone.

He literally says its a dysfunction

You are arguing with yourself.

No, your just don't know how to read, or are severely mentally defective

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, but such reasoning is enough to deduce that to sterilize yourself voluntarily for no grave reason offends the Creator, whether you think He exists or not.

Or do you say sex has a different natural purpose?

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What is your source for that claim?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The laws of logic. This isn’t CNN where you have to trust the experts!

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If someone loses thier stomach due to cancer and has to be sustained by intravenous nutrition should they continue to eat if they feel hunger? Surely no one would object if they choose to, but only a fool would argue that thier situation somehow diminishes the argument that the purpose of eating is sustenance.

If those people choose to eat rock because they are more convenient and satiate that urge more, surely you would not argue that this proves that eating rocks is normal or somehow a natural part of eating.

Sure you would not argue that eating poison is normal and natural just because some people do it.

Surely you would not deny that eating too much is a disorder, as well as eating too little.

Why does this logic not apply to sex?

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Instinct. They are programmed to push other members of their tribe into having as many children as possible and sacrificing themselves for the mystical collective spirit.