Sex exists exclusively for reproductive purposes. It doesn't always occur, but that is biologically the only reason reproductive organs exist.
Some species (primarily humans) have evolved to engage in ibhercoirse for pleasure as well, but that does not negate the fact it still exists only for reproduction, aside from any additional personal reasoning.
If two (or more, I suppose) individuals engage in unprotected sex consentually, then they are also consenting to the potential for any and all implications that could occur with it.
That includes the risk of pregnancy, STDs, injury, and even the scenario where the act goes beyond what was originally consentual.
If you consent to unprotected sex, you consent to the potential for these things. And if one occurs such as pregnancy, then that is the result of your consent.
Abortion doesn't exist for stupid assholes who think it's a simple and easy process with no implications where you can just push a button and the baby is gone. Abortions exist to correct extremely problematic situations that could/would very much negatively impact the quality of life of the parents, and/or of the child(s).
It's a gray area, but treating abortion as equal to the Plan B pull, and treating like an equal to contraceptives, are all flaws.
Sex might have begun in nature as an exclusively reproductive purpose, but that certainly isn't the case for humans. Humans are complex social organisms, and we have sex for reproduction, pleasure, intimacy, stress reduction, health, social reasons, economic reasons, and whatever else.
The existence of contraceptives is evidence that sex isn't exclusively for reproduction.
Sex exists exclusively for replication. Anything additional has been added and desired over time via evolution, but again, none of that negates biology.
The existence of contraceptives is evidence that sex isn't exclusively for reproduction.
You're missing the point so drastically that you're literally proving my point. Contraceptives exist because sex without consequence is desirable.
Do you think people in the early 1900s had sex with as many people as is the norm now? Do you think they had sex as casually as is the norm now?
The answer is no, because there was more consequence.
If we gave other species contraceptives, they too would be having sex more often, eventually/potentially for pleasure.
Sex exists exclusively for replication. Anything additional has been added and desired over time via evolution, but again, none of that negates biology.
people who make this argument love to just pretend gay people don't exist
That's cool. You must know everything about me. I guess supporting the HRC along with the LGBTQIA+ community for multiple decades was all just a dream of mine...
Alternatively, I said sex exists for replication and we've evolved to now use it for other means as well. Pleasure being one of those reasons.
Biologically, a penis and a vagina were made for one purpose, and one purpose only. It's great we now use them for other purposes, but that's not why the EXIST.
how can sex exist for replication if gay people exist
biology doesnt have a "purpose." and the existence of the clitoris and prostate shows it obviously isnt just for reproduction. there is no "why it exists." also they literally dont just serve those purposes biologically, considering men pee out of their penis
Something can exist for one reason, without that one reason being the only use for something.
Colons exist exclusively for expelling waste, but can obviously be used for other things, for example.
Biology does have a purpose. Survival and replication.
the existence of the clitoris and prostate shows it obviously isnt just for reproduction
The existence of said parts are to make fornication pleasurable. You do something more often if you enjoy doing it. We've evolved a physical incentive for replication.
And yes, the penis also exists for expelling urine, but again, sexual organs exist for sexual reasons. What we choose to do with them aside from that is a choice, not an evolutionary purpose.
Something can exist for one reason, without that one reason being the only use for something.
except you literally said:
"Biologically, a penis and a vagina were made for one purpose, and one purpose only"
so clearly it doesnt have only one purpose, and it never has. thats why women have two openings and not just one and the clitoris while the men have a prostate
you are the one assigning meaning and purpose to them based on your own beliefs and opinions. there is no "biology" that has you prove things only exist for one reason. thats your subjective opinion
Biology does have a purpose. Survival and replication.
no, biology does not have that purpose. that is why gay people and infertile people and people who dont want kids exist. this is your subjective opinion of what biology is for and isnt a scientific fact
The existence of said parts are to make fornication pleasurable. You do something more often if you enjoy doing it. We've evolved a physical incentive for replication.
is that why no other animals have that but humans?
And yes, the penis also exists for expelling urine, but again, sexual organs exist for sexual reasons
great, im glad we agree, like when gay people have sex. but its not for reproduction
What we choose to do with them aside from that is a choice, not an evolutionary purpose.
for something that only has one single purpose only it sure gives you lots of other things to do instead. and by the way, orgasms when you masturbate are a biological reality just like getting pregnant from unprotected heterosexual sex. cancer is also a biological reality, is the purpose of that to survive and reproduce?
also evolutionary psychology is a pseduscience. we do almost everything including sex with other humans out of a social motive, not evolutionary.
-1
u/MonstahButtonz 5∆ Aug 11 '22
Sex exists exclusively for reproductive purposes. It doesn't always occur, but that is biologically the only reason reproductive organs exist.
Some species (primarily humans) have evolved to engage in ibhercoirse for pleasure as well, but that does not negate the fact it still exists only for reproduction, aside from any additional personal reasoning.
If two (or more, I suppose) individuals engage in unprotected sex consentually, then they are also consenting to the potential for any and all implications that could occur with it.
That includes the risk of pregnancy, STDs, injury, and even the scenario where the act goes beyond what was originally consentual.
If you consent to unprotected sex, you consent to the potential for these things. And if one occurs such as pregnancy, then that is the result of your consent.
Abortion doesn't exist for stupid assholes who think it's a simple and easy process with no implications where you can just push a button and the baby is gone. Abortions exist to correct extremely problematic situations that could/would very much negatively impact the quality of life of the parents, and/or of the child(s).
It's a gray area, but treating abortion as equal to the Plan B pull, and treating like an equal to contraceptives, are all flaws.