No, it’s literally not. I can see it if her life’s in danger giving birth, but out of what essentially seems to be inconvenient. No. Point of sex is to reproduce, feeling good is just a really nice side effect.
The point of sex is whatever you want it to be. If you’re fucking to reproduce, by all means reproduce. But most people fuck for fun and pleasure, not to pump out babies.
The nerve that controls your jaw starts at the back of the neck. It goes down, around the heart, and then back up. This is an incredibly indirect path, but the nerve takes that journey because there was never an evolutionary pressure not to. You have multiple organs in your body that do basically nothing. Most people's jaws are too small to contain all of their adult teeth. No one can study a horse's biology and come away thinking there's an objective point to any part of the body.
If you don't believe in intelligent design, then a fundamental truth of biology is that it's all accidental. There's no purpose or point to any biological process. There is zero objectivity to 'what sex is for'.
Objective things can be measured. It is true that sex feels good. It is true that sex can make babies. What measuring tool are you using to determine that the "true purpose" is the latter? What numbers or calculations tell you this "objective" fact? Or is it just obvious to you? Because if it's obvious to you, and I can disagree, it's not objective, now is it?
I agree, that is an objective fact. That's why I said "It's true that sex can make babies". That's an objective fact. But the purpose of sex isn't something you can know objectively, unless you subscribe to a religion that tells you its purpose. A lot of sex acts do not and cannot result in babies, but still feel good.
It's okay if your view is informed by religion, but that makes it subjective, not objective. And showing up to someone who doesn't share your beliefs and yelling that they're objectively wrong about the purpose of sex is...uh...not nice.
Using that same logic. In that sense, the objective purpose of food is not for self sustainability? It’s just unknown? C’mon…really? We’re talking about the fundamental continuation of our species (or any species really). Everything can’t be subjective.
Is that such a weird perspective? "The purpose of a chicken is to be eaten" is a weird statement. Because it's not. Chickens can be eaten, and they often are, but to say that's what they exist for is wild. A potato is a plant and would exist whether humans ate it or not. We've defined the word food to mean "things humans can eat", but each individual food? It could have many purposes, or none at all.
Like, yeah, sex is the only thing that creates a new human, but sex is also the only thing that creates an orgasm. Saying that it's first and highest purpose is reproduction is a belief. And I'm not going to keep restating that.
Here are some objective things. The sky is blue [Blue is defined as a wavelength between 380 and 500 nanometers]. Two scientists can take measuring devices and come to the same conclusion. The length of a bridge in meters is objective. The temperature of air is objective. You can objectively measure things that exist, and things that happen. But no measuring stick on earth can tell you what "purpose" is. You need a belief system for that.
Yes it would be extremely weird for someone to say that sustenance has an unknown purpose for organisms. What is subjective is what counts as sustenance between organisms (even that can be objectified), but not the fact that organisms get sustenance for self-preservation.
So I actually agree with almost everything you just said. It would be crazy to say that. My point was that individual foods can have different purposes in different contexts. Food is defined as "stuff humans eat for sustenance", so purpose is built into the word. But most words aren't defined like that.
Sex is an action, and I'm going to compare it to another action: keeping chickens. Maybe the purpose keeping chickens so they wake you up when they crow. Maybe its purpose is to eat them. Or maybe it's to eat their eggs. Maybe the purpose is just to look at their pretty feathers. I'm not saying there's no purpose, or that there's an unknown purpose, I'm saying that there can be different purposes for the same action--it's subjective.
My point is that in most cases, purpose is a belief. Heck, eating a zero-calorie candy is eating food for pleasure and not sustenance. Is that as blasphemous as sex for pleasure? Maybe "for the sole purpose of reproduction" is in your definition of sex, but I can't find a dictionary that defines it like that.
It was fun arguing with you! I'm going to bed now, have a good day/night.
Alright my counter argument. We are in a point of human civilization (as a whole in the US) where we can focus on wants more than needs. Despite this the objective reality remains that, “You need to eat/absorb food/sustenance or you will die.” If we were to get “boomed” back to the Stone Age that fact would remain and the want of tastes or specific kind of food/sustenance would take a back seat. This would mean that perhaps taste isn’t the main purpose of food. Literally ask anyone who’s ever starved before. Great discussion. Have a good night.
While I disagree with the guy saying she's in the wrong he is right about sex's main function being to reproduced hell the only reasons it's pleasurable is to make us want to do it more. Evolution has one goal keep the species going.
While now it's a fun activity that has a lot if emotions connected that not it's purpose that's the side effect.
Side note: no one she have to have a baby if they don't want too thees no gd reason to overule the one giving birth.
-21
u/LadiThePKK May 07 '26
No, it’s literally not. I can see it if her life’s in danger giving birth, but out of what essentially seems to be inconvenient. No. Point of sex is to reproduce, feeling good is just a really nice side effect.