is fornication or "sex for the sake of sex" an evil thing or did the "church" make this up?...

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   
.
I am pretty much a devout athiest.

That said, it must be observed that the act of intermingling moist protein tissues is an easily accessable vector for microorganisms and viruses.

So evolution [biological or social] has in many cases created prudish attitudes towards sex, via whatever means to protect people from themselves. It ofcourse goes into direct competition with the biological urge to have sex, Therefore it has to be a pretty stringent edict to be followed over the top of passionate needs and have any effect.

But perhaps that has to be balanced with the fact that viruses may have played a very signigicant role in biological evolution. Infecting the reproductive cells is the only means of creating evolutionary change in a species.

You have:
High risk -> most often disaster, with very rarely high rewards
Low risk -> low risk, unchanging persistance of the species.
.




posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
.
I am pretty much a devout athiest.


Hmmm. That's quite a telling statement.


Originally posted by slank
So evolution [biological or social] has in many cases created prudish attitudes towards sex, via whatever means to protect people from themselves.


Although this hypothesis can't be dismissed outright, modern evidence suggests there's something wrong with it. Subsaharan Africa has the highest population growth and the lowest prude factor - this in spite of aids, which as far as we can tell is a new disease.

I tend to think that sexual self control is mostly a manufactured phenomenon of religion used as a tool to subjugate the masses.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 03:31 AM
link   
.
You would agree then that some degree of prudishness could be a useful trait for longevity, yes?
For a species that takes advantage of learned skills as much as ours seems to longevity would mean less time and energy re-teaching those skills and less risk of losing those taught skills because no mature adults were around to teach them.
Non diseased children would have a better chance of survival, which would be important for a species that invests so many years of time, energy and resources getting a child to useful adulthood.

I think it is possible that there may be some tendancy for [some] humans to adhere to some amount of socially imposed prudishness.

Bacteria and other less advanced forms of life reproduce whenever they can. More advanced lifeforms may reproduce rhymically with the season of the year to insure good times to feed offspring. I don't find it too difficult to think humans have developed much more elaborate constraints and mechanism in their reproduction tendancies.

It is of course speculation on my part, but sexual constraints exist in many [most?] cultures around the world. Could that all be by accident? I think that is improbable.

The social ostrasization of overly sexually promiscuous females by the other females is probably an inate biological tendancy, which religions simply take opportunistic advantage of.
.

[edit on 17-6-2005 by slank]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 06:14 AM
link   
How can a thread with a presupossed dictate aginst the simple, stupid act of sex get here?

What, sex is bad? Get a life.

Sex is dangerous. Lucky you. Spend 2 bucks on rubber.

Sex is....un-natural? What?

Dickhead. Look down next time you piss, it isnt a monster after all!





new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join