Jach's personal blog

(Largely containing a mind-dump to myselves: past, present, and future)
Current favorite quote: "Supposedly smart people are weirdly ignorant of Bayes' Rule." William B Vogt, 2010

Views On Sex

Everyone has their own views on sex, so I'm going to throw mine in the pot as well. I believe it to be quite simple, so this will be a short post.

As one might guess, I consider the matter from practical terms. Sex serves two purposes: breeding and pleasure. To me, outside of marriage, breeding is the only useful purpose and the only reason one should have sex. Thus if a woman came up to me and asked to have sex, and it was demonstrated that she was drug and disease free and no contraceptives would be used, I'd be forced by logic to oblige. If she becomes pregnant, my genes score, and without having to have any paternal investment in the matter.

This is not often the case, though. People have sex now just for pleasure alone, with breeding coming as a secondary thought, and I don't believe in that. If I want pleasure, I can do drugs, or I can work on something fun, or...I can do a lot of things, and orgasmic feelings are surely not the highest pleasures.

Should all sex therefore be done just to breed? There is a single exception, and that is sex within marriage. So long as the pair do plan to breed (or have bred), pleasure-sex can indeed strengthen the relationship. It then has a purpose beyond the pleasure, and so it makes sense to do.

So yeah... Sex is good iff for breeding or strengthening a relationship, otherwise it's a waste of time. I know most people won't subscribe to this view, and frankly I don't care much if they do or don't. I just think it's more practical.

Posted on 2009-11-29 by Jach

Tags: philosophy


Trackback URL:

Back to the top

Amaroq December 14, 2009 04:42:09 AM If being pleasureful disqualifies something from being good, then why do you leave room for relationships at all? It isn't a far stretch to apply your logic on sex to other forms of happiness/pleasure, including forming relationships at all.
Jach December 14, 2009 06:08:26 AM Being pleasureful doesn't disqualify it; being a waste of time does.
Anonymous November 19, 2016 10:25:18 AM I would not want to breed outside marriage and raise a child on my own, not knowing for sure who the father is. I think guys should be more invested in their offspring and appreciate that conception is a beautiful miracle in life, not just blow it off as no big deal. There is nothing better in the world than being able to have a child and see not only yourself in it, but your lover as well, you and your favorite person combining to create a new individual. It should not be something taken for granted.

Well, I heard the male birth control is coming out soon. Now guys will finally be able to put their own fertility in their hands and stop bitching about child support. I sort of understand why some guys would not want to be a part of that, considering they have no choice in the abortion since it's the woman carrying it. But really, how often does the girl actually manipulate the condom or trick the guy? Most of the time, the two were just being careless idiots. If he does not have any interest in raising the child, he should at least provide for it in some way, rather than abandon all responsibility all together.

Sex is supposed to be a bonding experience as well, not solely for pleasure. If all I cared about was pleasure, I'd probably just masturbate or something. Women don't need penetration to have an orgasm. Their finger seems to do a good job of that on its own.. It is supposed to connect two people.

So mainly you're saying the only reason you would engage in sex, if there was a possibility that she would become pregnant. Most women who have casual sex are at risk for contracting STDs and worried about that, just as you are. They don't have a one night stand because they want a child, they would find a serious long term mate or provider for that. So likely, she will be on some sort of contraceptive (perhaps a shot, pill, or insert) and most definitely a condom.. Condoms are good for people who are not in a monogamous relationship and go through different partners regularly. You shouldn't just so willingly shoot your genetics at any woman who gives you the chance.. What if she is some incompetent moron and your genes get wasted, as a result? Even if she does somehow get pregnant, there is no guarantee that she won't be able to track you down later and find out if it is your child. Not every woman who does engage in sexual activities, does it so frequently..

It just depends on her habits. If it's a once in a while thing and you just happened to really lucky to catch her fancy, it could wind up differently.. I suggest being more careful, if you really want to avoid a thing like that. Women are selective about who they breed with and would like to do their kid justice, so they can grow up knowing who the other parent of them was.. They're not like men, who breed like rabbits and try to knock everyone up. I guess we're just not wired that way.

What about things like her secretly having an affair or what if she was born male? You cannot easily disprove those kind of things with a doctor's note. I do not feel sorry for people who have casual sex and it happens to backfire.. They are the ones who risk these things.

What is the point, if you will never know for sure if you were truly successful? You sound like you would have better luck if you just donated your sperm, to be honest..
Jach January 01, 2017 02:10:40 AM I should probably update this. :) I agree donating to a sperm bank is the most effective way of spreading your genes. It's somewhat difficult to get accepted though (but there was an interesting case some years back about a guy who lied about everything...). Generally I still think sex is best thought of in the sense of being useful for bonding or for breeding; as pleasure, which it is too, it's a pretty risky form of it these days. As you mention, there's the possibility of unwanted impregnation and then being stuck with child support, or the possibility of various STDs some of which don't care if you're wearing a condom. Basically I just find it aesthetically distasteful to pursue something purely because it's pleasurable, and even more distasteful when there are risks involved -- at least eating a gallon of ice cream doesn't really have direct risks. When people complain about problems stemming from such pursuits it's hard for me to find sympathy. I suspect a lot of my view is really influenced by my lower-than-average libido. I'm not even dating anyone.

DNA tests are cheap so it's easy these days to make sure you're not a cuck.

I always thought of condoms as male birth control, with the pill etc. as female birth control. But there are even more things on the male/female side that aren't just coming out but have been available for over a decade. Ranging from the permanent (vasectomy, or removing ovaries) to more temporary (RISUG, or tying tubes) there are so many options that it is even harder to feel sorry about unwanted pregnancies as a result of casual sex. Though instead of abortion or outlawing abortion I do think a third option of cryopreserving the fetus should be the standard.
Back to the first comment

Comment using the form below

(Only if you want to be notified of further responses, never displayed.)

Your Comment:

LaTeX allowed in comments, use $$\$\$...\$\$$$ to wrap inline and $$[math]...[/math]$$ to wrap blocks.