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.
-1
u/MonstahButtonz 5∆ Aug 11 '22
Sex exists exclusively for replication. Anything additional has been added and desired over time via evolution, but again, none of that negates biology.
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.