Sex was designed for procreation?

[BelovedBird]

Do those that believe this only engage in sex when they can become pregnant?
What about when they already are pregnant? Or infertile? Or past menepause?

Please explain.

[lab]

bump

because I'm curious too!

[seren]

Good question. :

[pugmadmama]

I used to wonder about this...it rang true to me to a certain degree. Then two things happened...one, I discovered I was infertile and two, I became friends with many, loving homosexual couples.

I just could not accept that G-d made sex for procreation alone or even primarily for procreation (in which case G-d was out of the exquation in sexual relationships for people like me and my gay or lesbian friends.) I finally decided that by declaring that sex was designed for procreation was actually selling sex short.

Sexual relations between people can mean so many different sacred things, procreative is just one of many meanings.

[Meiri]

This may sound rough, but to me that concept reduces sex to an animal level only. Animals mate only when in heat and only for procreation (though there are exceptions). Humans are so much more complex emotionally and intellectually than that. Besides which the groups that say that are the same ones who teach how we're above the animals... We're above them but we're only supposed to use sex the way they do????

[Cranberry]

Originally Posted by Nursing Mother

I do know though that God endorses sex for the purpose of sexual pleasure

Not if you're Catholic. At least that's how I was raised (*flashbacks to Catholic school* : ).

[Elzabet]

There's an entire book of the Bible devoted to the pleasures of the marriage bed. Song of Songs (or Song of Solomon). It's one of my favorites. And considering after 10 years I haven't gotten pregnant yet, thank God for it.

[BelovedBird]

So noone is going to explain that view to me, huh?

[cappuccinosmom]

My view is that it was created both for pleasure and procreation. I think *most* people who say it was created for procreation would simply say that it is incorrect to separate the two. ie. enjoy the fun while trying to avoid the procreative aspect. There are God-given times of infertility, and there's nothing wrong with enjoying intimacy during them. Actually, this is *official* Catholic doctrine as well, in spite of the twisting some have done to make sex "bad".

I've only known one person who said it was for procreation only. And he was a real weirdo. I told him he'd have a hard time finding a wife with that kind of attitude. Sheesh!

[jengi33]

Originally Posted by BelovedBird

So noone is going to explain that view to me, huh?

I personally don't know anyone who holds to that view, and I come from a very conservative area and attend a very conservative church.

[cappuccinosmom]

Oh, I had a thought.
Like I said, I only know one person who believes sex is only for procreation.

So, is it possible that there is simply a misunderstanding of those who don't use birth control, and let marital sex result in as many babies as God will give? I know people have made the assumption about us, that because we don't use bc, we don't believe sex can be fun. Kind of a weird mental turn, but it's common. A lot of our qf aquaintances have that assumption made about them as well. 'Matter of fact, we do enjoy it, alot! And we think Song of Solomon it a neat book.

[BelovedBird]

Actually the thread title came from someone's post in spirituality- I didn't want to derail that thread. It was the "catholics and nfp" thread. I guess I should have put it was a spin off. Mabey only the op of the statment can answer....

[applejuice]

I was raised Roman Catholic; I currently teach in an Eastern Orthodox Church School and I have converted to Judasim (, o.k.!).

I do not believe that way now, but if my memory serves me well, I recall that the teaching was that sex is special, should only be within the confines of holy matrimony, and using nfp, should be used as a celebration of love between the couple, with fertility awareness, which should deepen the couple's love and understanding of each other's needs and desires; meaning the man would understand the woman's fertility cycle and know her moods at various points in the cycle, and the woman would understand her man's desire for closeness and sex at the same time. I have heard of "sex only for procreation" line, but never in my life have I met anyone IRL, lay or clergy, who followed this line of thinking.

[Ravin]

Even if you look at it from a completely non-spiritual animal point of view, as primates we aren't expected to have sex only for procreation. Sexual behavior is used to relieve social tension or establish relationships among apes, particularly bonobos and chimpanzees.

So even if we're just animals sex isn't just for procreation!

[ameliabedelia]

Not if you're Catholic. At least that's how I was raised (*flashbacks to Catholic school*

You were raised with incorrect Catholic teaching then. Catholics certainly enjoy sex. I don't know anyone who believes sex is for procreation ONLY.

[stafl]

Originally Posted by ameliabedelia

I don't know anyone who believes sex is for procreation ONLY.

I do. extreme fundamentalist southern baptists... at least that's what they preach, I have no idea what they do in private.

[Paxetbonum]

Um. . . i think the view of "sex for kids only" comes from a more Calvinistic understanding of the whole nature/grace thing. Calvin saw the matrerial world only as a source of temptation and anything of the flesh as hopelessly sinful. He probably understood sex to be a necessary evil. On the otherhand the Catholic understanding of the material world is that since Christ became incarnate man, the material order is sanctified and all material goods can be means of sanctification (sex included) that means rather than supressing our passions, we need to order them to the highest good of all, union with God. IF the material world is inherently good, than sex is also good.

Nota bene: Catholics are all about the unitive part of sex too!

[ferraroX3]

my husband is a currently going to seminary to be a southern baptist preacher...no they do not preach that sex is only for procreation. the bible is very clear that a woman's body is for her husband's pleasure and a man's body is for his wife's pleasure.

[Aura_Kitten]

this bears repeating:

Sexual relations between people can mean so many different sacred things

i've met quite a few people who wholeheartedly believe sex is for procreation only. i pity them. these are people who have never felt the divine ecstasy of a union shared between partners w/ complete love.

[karen ann]

Originally Posted by BelovedBird

Sex was designed for procreation?

Do those that believe this only engage in sex when they can become pregnant?
What about when they already are pregnant? Or infertile? Or past menepause?

Please explain.

From an atheist point of view (and no claims of it being representative anyone else's position but my own), this is what I think.

I believe your original statement (in question form) as it is phrased to be fairly accurate, from a biological point of view. If parthogenesis, asexual reproduction, or however you want to phrase it, were a reality for our species (amongst others), we wouldn't have genitals. Their primary function is to further our species' reproduction, expand our gene pool and prevent our extinction.

That being said, sexual activity were not pleasurable, we would not have survived very long as a species. I do not think sexual nor sensual activity ought to be *only* for procreation/reproduction. Just because its *primary biological* function is to further the existence of H. sapiens does not mean that is its sole function. As someone else mentioned, other non-human species engage in "recreational" sexual activity.

DS just started night terror or I'd try to explain better. Gotta go.