Does sex have a purpose?

[Paraprakrti]

I don't know about that! Some of the sex I've had seemed pretty darn spiritual, even though had nothing to do with beggetting a new life.

Please explain to me what is "spiritual".

 

[Sunstone]

Please explain to me what is "spiritual".

For one thing, a feeling of connectedness to all things. But "spiritual" is ultimately beyond words.

 

[Paraprakrti]

I don't like this whole "sex for procreation" deal...I want my children to be conceived from spiritual sex, not "Honey--get over here and impregnate me--NOW!" At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what type of sex you have I suppose--biology is biology and babies are babies, but I think having sex for the sole purpose of procreation would be a little empty. Plus, I would imagine that thinking of babies while your having sex would be quite the turn off!

Yall are really misconstruing my point. I am not saying that sex should be emotionless and devoid of pleasure. I am saying that sex should be *primarily* for procreation. The emotion and enjoyment should be there as well. But people are currently engaging in and promoting sex like some sporting event. Then when pregnancy arrives, "oh, what am I gonna do!?... abortion!" If people think about this before they act, then there would be no problem. But the problem is that people are blindly indulged in sex life. They disregard the possibility of pregnancy. So now we have people actually taking time to get together and find ways around pregnancy. ALL based around the central mindstate of a pathetic indulgence. Intelligence is sacrificed because of this indulgement. An indulging mindstate that is hardly different from the mindstate behind rape. That's why there is so much rape! Because sense gratification is made the primary purpose for sex. And because of that sex is used to promote practically everything. Then when sex is on the mind so much, we are bound to have rape incidents. No one here is addressing the real problem because they feel that they fall into the statistics. To some degree we are all indulged in sex life and so we will compromise the simple and obvious fact, the solution to all these problems and controversies that surround sex.

 

[linwood]

I have a clitoris, and I'm not afraid to use it!

Thats a riot!
If I were a woman that would be my permanant signature!

For me the reasons for sex are in this order...

Bonding/Intimacy/Spirituality
Pleasure
It`s Tuesday.

Thats it I`ve got no other reason for sex.
I`ve got 3 kids so I`ve had enough of procreation thanks.

 

[Sunstone]

An indulging mindstate that is hardly different from the mindstate behind rape. That's why there is so much rape! Because sense gratification is made the primary purpose for sex.

I would think there is hardly any comparison between the "mindstate behind rape" and the "mindstate" of two people who mutually consent to sex. For one thing, part of the pleasure of (mutually consented to) sex is giving pleasure. It seems obvious that the rapist is not too concerned with giving pleasure.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think purpose can be relative from person to person....

Personally, I think sex is for procreation, yes, but it's also much more than that. Now, I have but limited experience on this issue (let's just say I'm a dandy canidate for sacrifice), but for me, physical initmacy of any kind is how I convey affection and deep feelings. So in a loving relationship, I would say that the main purpose of sex would be to show that affection and bond on a new level....As a woman of science, I feel compelled to test my theories...now all I need is a test subject. Any takers? :flirt:

Well, I've always wanted to donate my body to medical science...

 

[Paraprakrti]

Well, I sure have a problem with it, as it doesn't take lesbians/gays (not to mention people who just can't conceive), into consideration. :sarcastic Procreation comes dead last for me, as there is no earthly way that will happen from me having sex with my partner (unless I have a full turkey baster handy).

Well actually, lesbians/gays can procreate. They just have to find a member of the opposite sex. The only people that really can't procreate are the ones that have a defect in their reproductive system. If you can't procreate, don't have sex. It’s not that hard to understand once taken into consideration.

I rank intimacy/bonding first, and pleasure second - because, while yes, sex is extremely pleasurable, if all I was after was pleasure, I could do that on my own. Sex, for me, is a way of expressing love, and deepening the bond I have with my partner...if it was just lust, then I'd go out and madly shag everyone I could. My partner is on the other side of the world, and I wait for her, and her only.

As well, I am sure you get pleasure from intimacy/bonding.
So, your lust is selective. This doesn't make it not lust. My definition of lust is more philosophical. People try to rationalize lust into being love by some emotional connection, but if an emotion is particularly in favor of sense gratification then the emotion is also lustful. Dictionary.com says: "To have an intense or obsessive desire, especially one that is sexual."
My definition is similar to this but is based on my spirituality as well. I would say that love is also an intense or obsessive desire; the only difference is that love is the desire to please God, rather than please the material senses. Love can be had between two people only when God is the center. I am sure that everyone will not accept my particular definition of love. Nevertheless, lust is anything that centers on sense gratification, even emotional gratification, which can be considered a more subtle sense.

Pfft! Says who? You? So anyone, anyone at all, who his having sex, and who has no possible hope of conceiving as a result of that sex, is what - doing it purely out of lust? What a load of crap!

I can see how someone may create a new thread about love versus lust. My point above answers your question here.
The whole universe runs off of sexual attraction. The idea is to transcend the universe. That is the capacity of the human intellect. Sex gratification is very strong, but everyone should realize that eventually their genitals will be rotting on a corpse. Sounds like fun, huh? Love means engaging in one's relationship with the Absolute, engaging others to do the same, and even raising children for the same purpose. When the extent of any pleasure is finalized at the point of, "my senses" or even, "their senses are pleased", that is lust.

If procreation was the be-all and end-all of sex, then women would not have a clitoris. It is not required to be involved (and quite often, goes entirely ignored), for a woman to have sex, or to conceive. That 'added bonus' was not just put there as an aside, it's there for a very good reason. I have a clitoris, and I'm not afraid to use it! :jam:

Procreation is the wise choice. It is definitely not the "be-all and end-all". Pleasure will be there, of course. But when the pleasure (physical and emotional) becomes the main intent, that is lust. The fact that you have a clitoris does not back up your position. The fact that it may be often ignored in the sexual act is also irrelevant. I am not saying that the clitoris should be ignored. I am saying that the clitoris should not be the most important focus of the sexual act.

 

[linwood]

If you can't procreate, don't have sex. It’s not that hard to understand once taken into consideration.

I`m soooo glad you`re not a sex ed teacher.
My wife and I cannot procreate so we should not have sex.

Hmm...does this mean that it would be ok for me to have sex with someone other than my wife since it is actually she who cannot procreate?

If I were to accept your position that sex should be only for proceation then it would follow that infidelity is preferable over monogamy in my position.

What exactly is wrong with lust?
Why is it wrong for me to lust for my wife?

The idea is to transcend the universe.

Whose idea?

 

[Paraprakrti]

For one thing, a feeling of connectedness to all things. But "spiritual" is ultimately beyond words.

But apparently it is not beyond the genitals.

 

[Mister Emu]

Purpose of sex is procreation.

They are called reproductive organs for a reason, and it wasn't a spontaneous burst of words.

Sex is pleasurable so that we are more inclined to engage in the act, thus procreating more, thus ensuring human survival(If sex was excruciatingly(spelling) painful how many would have it?)

Sex connects us so that we provide a stable and safe place for our offspring to grow, so that they may procreate later in life.

Also just because something is used in a certain manner does not mean that the manner is the intended purpose(whether the purpose comes from a creator or evolution). How society feels at a certain point about sex does not change that the entire reason we were created with/evolved reproductive organs is the continuation of the species.

 

[Raphael]

One of the primary attributes of God is that he is a creator. We being made in his image share in many of his attributes in a finite way. Procreation is mans sharing in the divine attribute of creation. As we share our life is sexual intercourse we experience and are taught many things about this creation and our place in it. The intimacy and pleasures involved in carrying out this sharing of affection and pleasure indicate the closeness we need to find to express our love. The pleasure is to induce us to continue to share in this intimacy for two main purposes. First to compliment the continuation of the species and second to show us in a finite way to hope for the infinitely greater pleasure of beatific vision to be shared by those intimate friends of God who entire into eternal life. There are many more aspects of sex and its purpose and the need to great life and the transmission of life with joy.

 

[Paraprakrti]

I`m soooo glad you`re not a sex ed teacher.
My wife and I cannot procreate so we should not have sex.

Why are you unnecessarily defending this propensity? Do you not have better things to be doing? Do whatever you want with your wife. It's your wife, not mine. I am just saying that there is more to life than sexual gratification. It is difficult to understand what more there is when you are continually taking shelter in the vagina.

Hmm...does this mean that it would be ok for me to have sex with someone other than my wife since it is actually she who cannot procreate?

Is it imperative that you have more children? I thought three was enough. So the real question is why you are asking about seeking sex with another woman. If you are done, you're done. I am sure you have more important things to be concerned about.

If I were to accept your position that sex should be only for proceation then it would follow that infidelity is preferable over monogamy in my position.

Marriage is for starting family life. Family life means having children. If you are having children with someone who is not your wife, then you mightaswell make her your wife. Of course, I don't see why you would have the desire to have more kids at this point anyway. Infidelity is not preferred over monogamy. Self-control is preferred over unrestricted indulgence. If you can't have kids with the one you married, then your focus shouldn't be around sex.

What exactly is wrong with lust?
Why is it wrong for me to lust for my wife?

It is understandable that lust will be there. That is part of the reason we have marriage. It teaches us to focus our lustful ways toward raising a family. But lust should eventually be grown out of. By being indulged in lust one cannot see anything greater. One thinks that life is just a means to enjoy sense gratification (sex being the most prominent) and then die. This is all because hardly anyone has a real understanding of the transcendental self. You aren't going to accept that there is anything wrong with you lusting for your wife. So I am not even going to answer your question directly. You do what you feel is best. If sex is the end-all, be-all pastime of life then why are you wasting time conversing on these threads?

Whose idea?

Everyone's idea if they had even the slightest taste of that reality. Unfortunately, most people are so indulged in materialisticness that they have no conception of anything else. Some people are more receptive to these concepts, whereas some are ready to fight them tooth and nail. Reminds me of a part in that movie "The Matrix" where Laurence Fishburne's character, Morpheus says, "Some people are so immersed, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it."
And on that note, this sensual world is just like a 'matrix'. Everyone has a sense of self but hardly anyone realizes what that self is. The realization is traded in for some degree of sense gratification that constitutes false ego conceptions. People think self in relation to the body, in relation to the place of birth, in relation to material likes and dislikes, etc, etc, etc. It is all irrelevant to who we are. Okay, this is going off topic. That's all I'm going to say on that.

 

[Paraprakrti]

sorry for this double post

 

[Ceridwen018]

Paraprakrti,

I think you might be missing the boat a bit here. What linwood is trying to point out, is that even according to biblical teachings, procreation is not the number one purpose of sex. It is a large purpose, certainly, but not the most important one. If it were, then men would be doing god's will by having sex with as many women as possible, in order to impregnate as many women as possible. Likewise, it would be sinful for a couple who cannot procreate to have sex, even if they are married because there will obviously be no children. When the bible talks about marriage and sex, it says that man and wife shall 'become one'. This is obviously referring to the deeper and more spiritual bond that sex can intoduce into a relationship. The whole reason why you're supposed to wait until you're married to have sex, is due to the fact that sex bonds two people together.

 

[linwood]

Thank you Ceridwen.

 

[Lightkeeper]

Paraprakrti,

I think you might be missing the boat a bit here. What linwood is trying to point out, is that even according to biblical teachings, procreation is not the number one purpose of sex. It is a large purpose, certainly, but not the most important one. If it were, then men would be doing god's will by having sex with as many women as possible, in order to impregnate as many women as possible. Likewise, it would be sinful for a couple who cannot procreate to have sex, even if they are married because there will obviously be no children. When the bible talks about marriage and sex, it says that man and wife shall 'become one'. This is obviously referring to the deeper and more spiritual bond that sex can intoduce into a relationship. The whole reason why you're supposed to wait until you're married to have sex, is due to the fact that sex bonds two people together.

I don't think the whole reason for waiting to have sex until after marriage is because of the bond. It also has to do with not having children out of wedlock.

 

[QTpi]

Paraprakrti,

I think you might be missing the boat a bit here. What linwood is trying to point out, is that even according to biblical teachings, procreation is not the number one purpose of sex. It is a large purpose, certainly, but not the most important one. If it were, then men would be doing god's will by having sex with as many women as possible, in order to impregnate as many women as possible. Likewise, it would be sinful for a couple who cannot procreate to have sex, even if they are married because there will obviously be no children. When the bible talks about marriage and sex, it says that man and wife shall 'become one'. This is obviously referring to the deeper and more spiritual bond that sex can intoduce into a relationship. The whole reason why you're supposed to wait until you're married to have sex, is due to the fact that sex bonds two people together.

Well said, Ceridwen!

 

[Mister Emu]

What linwood is trying to point out, is that even according to biblical teachings, procreation is not the number one purpose of sex.

Could you inform me where this view originates. As far as I have known, procreation is not only the number one, but the only purpose sex has.

If it were, then men would be doing god's will by having sex with as many women as possible, in order to impregnate as many women as possible.

No, just because sex is supposed to be used for procreation purposes does not mean that you are supposed to procreate as much as possible.

This is obviously referring to the deeper and more spiritual bond that sex can intoduce into a relationship.

While I agree that man and wife should become one in flesh to procreate, I also believe that becoming one in a spiritual sense should be far deeper than even sex can bring, it should transcend the material world. It should not matter whether sex is present as long as you are with your partner.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Paraprakrti,

I think you might be missing the boat a bit here. What linwood is trying to point out, is that even according to biblical teachings, procreation is not the number one purpose of sex. It is a large purpose, certainly, but not the most important one. If it were, then men would be doing god's will by having sex with as many women as possible, in order to impregnate as many women as possible. Likewise, it would be sinful for a couple who cannot procreate to have sex, even if they are married because there will obviously be no children. When the bible talks about marriage and sex, it says that man and wife shall 'become one'. This is obviously referring to the deeper and more spiritual bond that sex can intoduce into a relationship. The whole reason why you're supposed to wait until you're married to have sex, is due to the fact that sex bonds two people together.

I'm missing the boat? It's funny that you said that. I'm actually on the boat right now, literally...

Procreation is the highest importance of sex. The married lifestyle is meant to control that sex desire by propagating family life. It is *understandable* that sex for pleasure will be there in marriage, at least in the early years. But the idea is to transcend materialistic living, period. Even the Bible teaches this.

You stressed:
"If it were, then men would be doing god's will by having sex with as many women as possible, in order to impregnate as many women as possible."

This is hilarious. You are assuming that God desires anything for Himself Personally, first of all, and secondly you are assuming that God's prescription for us to only have sex in married life and particularly for the purpose of begetting children means that we should seek to abundantly populate the planet. We should only populate the planet so far as we are capable of raising our children. Beyond that, sex life is unimportant. Just because procreation is the main intent does not mean that God wants people to have more children than they can handle.

 

[Paraprakrti]

While I agree that man and wife should become one in flesh to procreate, I also believe that becoming one in a spiritual sense should be far deeper than even sex can bring, it should transcend the material world. It should not matter whether sex is present as long as you are with your partner.

Wow, a bonding between two people that transcends sex?! I don't think they're ready for all that, Mister Emu.

Nice post.