Sex for Pleasure | Your Opinion

And it generally takes a lot of sex for each pregnancy.

 

I see SpaceCricket79 didn't take sex ed in school because it was immoral.

 

Yes. The more people have sex...the more sure they will have a baby.

 

From the Todd Akin School of Human Sexuality.

 

And there it is. If the only intention for sex was procreation, the pleasure portion would wane with menopause. And who precisely made the call that the intention, the sole intention of sex was procreation? What addled moralist would make such a repressive pronouncement?

 

Or they can decide to have an abortion, give the child up for adoption, or raise the child either together and cohesively or separately and amicability like responsible adults.

 

Really? I mean you have a limited chance of intercourse falling during ovulation, a limited chance of sperm meeting the egg a limited chance of implantation and a high chance of spontaneous miscarriage before the woman is even aware she is pregnant. It averages out as a lot of sex per pregnancy?

 

Are you opposed to sexual intercourse? (sexe, age, hair color, favorite perfume?)

 

The quote I was responding to was "It generally takes a lot of sex for each pregnancy". In fact, each pregnancy requires one act of sexual intercourse.

While it's true that the chances of getting pregnant after one act of intercourse are slim, a pregnancy requires only one session of sex, a zesty human enterprise.

 

It's the god of temptations aka never mind.

 

To each their own, so long as no laws are being broken... and there are some weird laws governing sex in the USA. I had to laugh at your question "sex for pleasure"... I was thinking to myself... is there any other reason? You have to understand that I am in my late 40's and my wife has had her tubes tied, so no need to worry about pregnancy leaving only pleasure as the reason for sex.

 

I have a friend who manages a managed care facility of retired persons. She says it's like Club Med for seniors and that they are always partying down with each other.

Shouldn't they be allowed?

 

How do you explain those pregnancies resulting after tubal ligations or vasectomies?

 

How did such a simple thread with such a simple premise evolve so suddenly into yet another tired, stale (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) session about abortion?

Christ, what a bore it is.

Here's a turn on the original scenario for you to ponder;

Same situation, but John and Jane are divorcee's in their late 30's. They don't use birth control because they don't have to.
John had a vasectomy back during his first marriage, and Jane had a hysterectomy due to uterine fibroid cysts shortly after her divorce.

They get together strictly for sex, and admittedly, there isn't much love or affection between them.
But there is a strong sexual attraction, and they really enjoy being (*)(*)(*)(*)-buddies.
It is apparent that they just hook up for sexual pleasure, while waiting for more meaningful & loving potential partners to come along.

Is this wrong to you?
Would you oppose this sort of thing?

Or should sex only be for the warm and tender expression of true love?

 

Nature finds a way. Sex is fun, but we need to remember why we have those organs to begin with.

Then again, would casual sex be as fun if there wasn't the idea that it was somehow naughty...?

 

The covenant of relations, is meant under the eyes of God, while in the participation of holy matrimony.

So no, according scriptures, sex for pleasure is fornication, and not allowed outside of the bond of spiritual commitment.

 

Lets be honest here. Have you ever enjoyed SIN?

 

I answered strictly by the wording of the question. I am agianst it for that couple becuase they are not married. Once you have commited to your partner in wedlock then go for it and enjoy.

 

It's easy to get a license for cheating. But how do you equalize your mental character to your genital demands?

 

What's it matter? Marriage is a merely a legal contract.

 

Which was never mentioned.

What, on earth, are you talking about...

 

Most sex-for-pleasure exercises are not within relationships but inbetween/outside them. So, to follow a sex-for-pleasure routine, most likely you have to be a certain type of individual who needs little human connection in the world and to whom a lot of things are simply a temporary transaction. The reason why this fails for most people is that only we men see the pleasure of sex as the goal, women see sex as only a means for (other) pleasures. So with the sex-for-pleasure we end up running out of female cooperators.

 

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the notion of women with "no strings attached" philosophies, nor would I be so apt to generalize. They exist, and they've been big girls about it. The scenario I provided isn't a traditional "relationship", but a relationship nonetheless... as two consenting adults have met in an agreement for a specific purpose. "Free love", revolutionized some 50 years ago, has provided plenty of time for men to "run out" of female cooperators... yet casual sex in the U.S. is on the rise.

 

Your use of the word "will" (I highlighted) suggests you think that all sexual relationships must eventually produce children. On that basis, I don't think you understand probability and statistics.

 

God absolutely create a man and woman to enjoy each other. Its his gift to them.