So you thought that sex was binary with a strict division between male and female

I wasn't arguing anything.
Simply a fact.
Most sex is for pleasure. Some sex is for procreation.

In your case, it's only pleasure, as you've told us.

 

why do you think it's pleasurable?

not always but either my pleasure or my partner's pleasure yeah. That's because I'm gay and two men can't make a baby.

Earlier you said my relationship was about pleasure do you not know the difference between relationship and sex?

 

Almost never had sex for procreation.

And going by your post.

 

So? If it's pleasurable to you why do you think that is?

 

Sort of the same reason as you, I suspect.
Except, I have sex as a male, with a female.

Why do you have sex with no chance of procreation?

 

the reason I think it's pleasurable is so that people are more likely to reproduce.

why if it's just her pleasure when can you get that with a man?

Because guys are hot. Have you ever seen a guy?
Women are not.

 

I simply said the purpose of sex is procreation.

You said the purpose of sex is pleasure.

"I'm happy and you're not". "Ask any 13 year old".

LoL sure. 13 year old mindset is a good way to describe an adult leftist though.

It's not my fault you reveal yourself when you open your virtual mouth.

Bye moo moo.

 

It's not even as simple as pleasure. We have a biological drive to use our equipment, so to speak.

If that imperative didn't exist at the biological level, things like praying mantises definitely wouldn't be looking for a hot date. Not the males for sure.

As for the last thing you said, we usually agree but not on that one lol

 

I once was confused about why straight guys loved breasts so much. There was a point in my life that i tried to be straight but never did figure out the breast thing. it was later I learned an ample bosom meant higher capacity for feeding of children and natural selection being a thing all biological organisms are subject to, guys like boobs.

Never could figure out what drew me to what I like. The best thing i could come up with is some sort of pleiotropic effect.

Brings new meaning to dinner date. But i completely agree the drive to reproduce outweighs the drive to survive. I am sure the mantis isn't thinking about making babies

Lol

 

When you're a baby breast make you hungry when you grow up they tend to make you horny. Lol!

 

So the vast majority of people have sex for pleasure.

 

Lol

 

The reason why it's pleasurable is so that humans are more likely to procreate if it was awful like getting a root canal we would be extinct.

It's okay if you do it for pleasure nobody's saying it's not okay. No point is the reason why it's pleasurable is so that there are more humans.

 

No.

They do it because they have a biological imperative.

They do it even when it leads to distinctly non-pleasureable results. To include humans.

Ask the male of many species that die right after mating.

Still, I asked what the PURPOSE of sex was.

You consulted your panel of 13 year olds that apparently make your decisions and came up with a dumb answer.

 

Yes there is those saying pleasure is not ok.
For a brief period of posts, you said that. LOL At leas understand what you post or agree with. Sheesh.

 

Who?

Really? which posts

Which post?

 

Non pleasureable results? LOL too funny.

There's some that have sex with the intent of never procreating

 

<Rule 2>

Men will put themselves in all kind of dangerous, stupid situations in order to have sex. They'll rape women knowing the consequences of doing so.

They'll kill for sex.

Women will have sex and later claim they were raped. Women will get pregnant then want abortions.

The biological imperative for sex leads to all kinds of problems when someone has underdeveloped usage of their brains.

<Rule 2>

 

Dunno. Never was a big deal to me. I mean sometimes they're so big that you can't help but notice.

I guess that's why breast augmentation is such a huge industry.

 

If it wasn't pleasurable people wouldn't do it...unless they were some goofy religious sect who thought women were broodstock and had to reproduce..

 

<Reply to Deleted>
Yes, there's a biological urge for sex, doesn't change the fact that 95% or more of sex acts are for pleasure.

 

Bingo. This is the correct answer, and what this whole thread boils down to. Glad you said it so I don't have to.

Anything else is just a distraction away from this fact.

Sex ("gender") is binary because the two options when there are no very rare "code copy errors" are male (XY) and female (XX). The code always strives for either an XX or an XY result, and only fails to achieve that result whenever the code isn't copied correctly.

Additionally, the only two options for chromosomes are X and Y. The system is binary in both of those manners, and very rare "code copy errors" don't change how the system operates under the vast majority of error-free "normal" circumstances. -- Abnormal circumstances do not change the principle of something. A worm inside of an apple does not change the definition of an apple. A code copy error does not change the definition of sex ("gender").

Abnormality is not normality.

 

The worm is separate from the apple. The DNA is part of the apple. A change in the DNA is a change in the apple, hence all the varieties that we have. But that is not the whole of it. As we learn we discover new things that change what we learned and assumed was consistent before. The question is, are the chromosomes the end all be all of sex, or are there other factors as well? The SRY gene is prominent in the creation of a male. If it detaches from a Y and attaches to an X, should we be looking at that towards the indication of sex? Such an XX person would have a male phenotype.

What is abnormality? More specifically, what is the dividing line between normality and abnormality? Which is left handed and why?

 

No, the worm is within the apple, not separate from it. But the presence of a worm within an apple does not change what an apple is, in principle.

"Abnormality" is the deviation away from that which is "normal", and "normal" in this case is XX (female, no SRY gene) and XY (male, SRY gene).

There are binary systems present (male/female sexes, X/Y chromosomes). There is no "third option" for sex, and there is no "third option" for chromosomes. Abnormalities that may occur as a result of imperfections ("code copy errors") do not change the definitions of those systems.

An apple with an imperfection is still an apple. A man with an imperfection is still a man.

 

The worm is separate from the apple, as it is not part of the apple, any more than sticking a knife into a body makes that knife part of the body. Quite honestly it's a poor analogy because the topic we are discussing has to do with something that is part and parcel of the body, and not something added in afterwards.

So then left handedness is a abnormality, right?

This presumes a limit that might not actually be one. The limit of division might be multi-factored. XY with SRY, XY without SRY, XX with SRY, XX without SRY. The rarity of two of those does not make them any less valid than the rarity of natural ambidexterity makes it any less valid.

An apple with an imperfection is still an apple, but now it's no longer a red delicious but a gold delicious. A human with an imperfection is still a human, but that does not mean that due to lack of prior knowledge and evidence we were right in our assumption of how many subdivisions there are. We used to count senility as a single thing. Now we know there are many different conditions that are similar instead of the one.