4 ms·

Sex was great back then? For women? Gays? Who? The point you make is backward-looking. I suggest we as a culture look forward instead.

ta8645 1y ago
> Sex was great back then? Yes, obviously; there was a much higher reproductive rate. It seems like you're talking about enjoyment or something else, but that really wasn't the focus of this thread.
- vjulian 1y ago
  I find it interesting you suggest that pleasure be separated from reproduction in a thread about encouraging reproduction.
  - ta8645 1y ago
    There is great pleasure in having a family. Even for people who get no pleasure out of the act itself.
al_borland 1y ago
What do you mean by “great”? It was successful in reproduction. That’s what we’re talking about here. People were having families and raising children that went out to have families and raise children. Gay couples can’t have children (outside of adoption or surrogacy), so I’m not sure how that is relevant to the topic at hand. Gay couples will not be helping with the next baby boom. We made a change in the culture, from the standpoint of the species continuing to survive into the future. The change put us on what looks like a worse path. Would it not be wise to question those changes to see where it went wrong and course correct, just like we’d do if this was any other problem in any other domain?
- vjulian 1y ago
  That you’re focusing on “reproduction” and factoring out the pleasure of sex is a vestige of religion and speaks to the very heart of the problem.
  - al_borland 1y ago
    This has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with not having the population collapse, because we've become so focused on pleasure that we forgot why there is a biological advantage to it being pleasureful... to do it more and reproduce more. But modern technology has eliminated that pesky side effect of children. The pleasure can and does still exist. It's not like it gets removed when sex is ends in a pregnancy. It doesn't have to be some mechanical act, the way you seem to be framing it.
    - vjulian 1y ago
      I get the sense that by pleasure you’re referring simply to orgasm during sex itself? Again, that is part of the problem. As for religion, I believe your view is in fact rooted in religion which strategically and historically segmented the sexual experience; not that you’re explicitly espousing a religious view but that it is implicit in what you’re suggesting.
      - al_borland 1y ago
        You’ve used the word “great” and “pleasure”, however you’re not specific about what you’re talking about. I’m having to guess at what you mean, and you keep telling me I’m guessing wrong, without clarifying your point. This isn’t productive.
        vjulian 1y ago
        I suspect our experiences are vastly different, thus a difficulty in communication.

ta8645 1y ago

> Sex was great back then? Yes, obviously; there was a much higher reproductive rate. It seems like you're talking about enjoyment or something else, but that really wasn't the focus of this thread.

vjulian 1y ago
I find it interesting you suggest that pleasure be separated from reproduction in a thread about encouraging reproduction.
- ta8645 1y ago
  There is great pleasure in having a family. Even for people who get no pleasure out of the act itself.

al_borland 1y ago

What do you mean by “great”? It was successful in reproduction. That’s what we’re talking about here. People were having families and raising children that went out to have families and raise children. Gay couples can’t have children (outside of adoption or surrogacy), so I’m not sure how that is relevant to the topic at hand. Gay couples will not be helping with the next baby boom. We made a change in the culture, from the standpoint of the species continuing to survive into the future. The change put us on what looks like a worse path. Would it not be wise to question those changes to see where it went wrong and course correct, just like we’d do if this was any other problem in any other domain?

vjulian 1y ago
That you’re focusing on “reproduction” and factoring out the pleasure of sex is a vestige of religion and speaks to the very heart of the problem.
- al_borland 1y ago
  This has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with not having the population collapse, because we've become so focused on pleasure that we forgot why there is a biological advantage to it being pleasureful... to do it more and reproduce more. But modern technology has eliminated that pesky side effect of children. The pleasure can and does still exist. It's not like it gets removed when sex is ends in a pregnancy. It doesn't have to be some mechanical act, the way you seem to be framing it.
  - vjulian 1y ago
    I get the sense that by pleasure you’re referring simply to orgasm during sex itself? Again, that is part of the problem. As for religion, I believe your view is in fact rooted in religion which strategically and historically segmented the sexual experience; not that you’re explicitly espousing a religious view but that it is implicit in what you’re suggesting.
    - al_borland 1y ago
      You’ve used the word “great” and “pleasure”, however you’re not specific about what you’re talking about. I’m having to guess at what you mean, and you keep telling me I’m guessing wrong, without clarifying your point. This isn’t productive.
      - vjulian 1y ago
        I suspect our experiences are vastly different, thus a difficulty in communication.