*Penetrative Sex Only when Willing to Raise a Child*

Post Reply New Topic

Even though I'm a virgin, personally I don't imagine I'd be comfortable having sex without having some reassurance of what would happen if the contraception failed somehow. The full reality of this only really occurred to me in recent years, though. I imagine that most people at the time of losing their virginity (younger than me) do not have this kind of perspective. A law concerning this, however, I imagine would be unenforceable and cause more harm than good.

How do you enforce it?

Ideally.

We all have issues. That's why we're here.

I'm not sure what your saying here. are you saying that people shouldn't have sex unless they are doing it to reproduce? if so I disagree.

However I personally think that people should be mature enough to accept the possible outcome of an unexpected child and to take on the responsibilities that comes with that and at the end of the day that's what it all boils down to, responsibility. Many would say that responsibility is the difference between being a child and being a grown up. In short children shouldn't have sex

I'm not prejudiced against short children but they have computer games and basketball which requires much more skill than sex. Of course, short children probably shouldn't play basketball either unless they do it on stilts and a game like that could be fabulous.

Computer games are easier than sex? I think not! You've never actually had sex with another human being, have you?

If you think its that hard, you're doing it wrong....

Sex and computer games ... these thing cannot be compared. Until the day when sex and computer games are somehow combined. Who will be first to do it, I wonder?

There are occasions when I feel my wife is not quite human, but I've heard that is common in many marriages. We get by. I have had two sons and now have three grandchildren and frankly, when I had sex I found it came very easily - much simpler than basketball which I've tried to play a couple of times and found it quite difficult to get the ball in the net. Putting my penis into the right place rarely gave me much difficulty except when, late at night and half asleep and in the throes of sexual fervor I awoke from my half sleep to find myself stuck in a milk bottle or a bagel or once, shockingly, about to penetrate an empty light socket. Luckily the switch was turned off or I might have become addicted to the practice which no doubt would have been much more thrilling than the missionary position. (Unless as someone obviously deep into religious practices, you have more interesting information about adventurous missionaries).

I stand corrected. And told a little more than I needed to know ...

Well, as you can see, the subject has endless fascinations for people who find their sexual motivations (through successful advertising) led into purchasing all sorts of things from space-ship shaped automobiles to crunchy peanut butter or tight blue jeans. I still find it amazing that religion industriously downgrades sex which is a prime mover to the suggestive mind. If Jesus, instead of being portrayed as a bearded aesthetic were shown as a version of Elvis Presley or one of the sexier movie stars I'm sure many more people might be attracted to religion (myself excepted since Jesus as Marilyn Monroe seems rather far fetched). The Muslims hold out a flock of post-mortem virgins willing and able to make happy any real religious enthusiast and considering the mayhem in the current world they seem to be rather successful.

But in fact it isn't; an awful lot of people don't have sex whenever they want. In fact, most people don't have sex whenever they want. Your proviso, that it should be consensual, makes nonsense of the first "should".

And it is actually the conflict between the two, expressed so often in "Love and Dating" on WP, for instance, which provoked me to post this thread.

A lot of heterosexual people in the Western world seem to think that penetrative sex, the reproductive kind, ( penile-vaginal, as clarified by slowmutant ), is something you have a "right to" as soon as you are 16/18 years old. As if it were harmless/safe entertainment for adults.

Whereas the fact is that even the most reliable contraceptive, used conscientiously, is only 98% reliable. There is always a small, but real, risk that penile-vaginal sex will produce a child.

Most women are aware, however unconsciously, of this risk, and their behaviour towards potential sexual partners is guided, consciously or not, by the consideration; " Will this guy be ready, willing, and able to support a child, and me, its mother, for a few years at least, if I get pregnant?", or, at an even more instinctive level, "Does this guy have alpha-male genes to give any child that I might end up having?

This ( risk ) factor will determine which guys turn her on, ... for as long as penetrative ( reproductive ) sex remains an inevitable/almost automatic part of sexual activity between men and women.

However, if people were brought up with the idea that there were two distinct kinds of sexual activity, one of them penetrative, ( in the reproductive way ), and the other being all other forms of sex none of them involving the possibility of creating new life, I suggest that women might begin to choose their partners differently, ( and that this might incidentally be of benefit to AS and other so called disordered/disabled etc ) .

If people were taught from childhood to perceive/distinguish between two kinds of sex, in exactly the same way that we are currently brought up to see homosexuality as perverted, and transgender as weird/sick, ( both of which attitudes I abhor, by the way ), and to think that certain behaviours are absolutely out of order, ie; with social conditioning, then it is possible that some/many women would choose their sexual partners, for both the long-term and short-term, rather differently;

Not so much on the basis of alpha-male gene selection, nor on the basis of beta-male capacity to protect and support a mother and child, nor influenced by their own fear of becoming a mother, but on some other basis, to do with similar interests and sensitivities perhaps.

And perhaps the number of abortions, and related problems, would drop aswell.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 03 Dec 2008, 10:37 am, edited 3 times in total.

I don't understand. What exactly are you suggesting?

That society should encourage people to distinguish between sexual partnership for raising a family, ( penile-vaginal penetration/intercourse ), and sexual activity which is for sexual companionship, ( everything else ). Separating sexual activity up into two kinds might encourage many people who are currently driven by genetic and/or social conditioning to seek alpha or beta style partners or none, to consider "types" they didn't before.

Rather than thinking of sexual partnership as necessarily involving penetrative ( reproductive ) sex, and seeking a sexual partner on this broad basis instead think, "Do I want a partner for raising a family, or for companionship involving sexual activity?" If the latter then do not expect to engage in ( penile-vaginal ) penetrative sex, nor demand or expect it of partner.

The 2% risk is often too much for women who don't want a child with a particular guy for example, or for women who don't want a child at all. And if she does have sex, because it is what one is expected to do, she may have difficulty enjoying it very much because of her profound, ( if often unconscious ), fear of getting pregnant.

Contraception has not succeeded in severing the act of intercourse from reproductive consequences. And I think most people know this at some level. It is like playing russian roulette to have penetrative sex unless you are willing to have/raise a child.

So long as "sex" is seen as automatically involving, ( potentially reproductive ), intercourse, people disabled, for whatever reason, by/in our society will have trouble finding sexual partners, and many women, ( and perhaps some men ), who fear parenthood will avoid sex/sexual relationships. There are more and more people living alone, avoiding sexual partnership because wish to avoid parenthood.

Men and women are suffering because no distinction is made between sex which is reproductive, and sex which is for fun and companionship.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 03 Dec 2008, 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The whole concept is unworkable. There is no way to control or enforce particular types of relationships. People go to bed with each other on the spur of the moment or when they're drunk and not thinking clearly. Whether they're married or not. Some kids are planned, some are accidents and people make the best of it. Some don't do well under any circumstances but emotions are ephemeral and unpredictable. And people change. They may connect for one reason and suddenly find reasons for other relationships. You can't formalize these things.