Conference quark::human_relations-v1

I have a few thoughts, some of which are humorous and none of which
are extremely significant, but 

>	... make us ponder  just  how  influential one simple
>	(biological) aspect of life can be.

is way off base. This 'simple' aspect of life happens to be the 
third strongest force in our mental make up. Possibly, the entire 
development of mankind would have taken a different turn, had this 
aspect of life not existed.

-- Ron

    Sex is pleasant to insure continuance of the species.
    
    Granted, with today's knowledge, those people that want to procreate
    would do it even if there were some discomforts associated with making
    an attempt, so it would not affect the ability of the human race to
    continue.  But, back before the knowledge of how women became pregnant
    was known man-kind would have died off if sex was unpleasant.

    re .2
    
    > Sex is pleasant to insure continuance of the species.

    This strikes me as slightly incomplete because it doesn't recognize
    enjoyment of sex as a cause AND a result in the evolutionary equation.

    - M

    If sex were awful everywhere for everybody?
    
    Video game sales would skyrocket!
    
    ;)
    
    -Jody

    This reminds me of a funny Vaughn Bod� comic strip (whose title cannot
    be printed here) featuring a "space stud" and his little robot buddy:
    
    Robot Buddy: "Gosh, <name of hero>, I sure wish I could have sex."
    
    Hero: "Don't worry about it, little pal; it's not all it's cracked up
    to be - crabs, V.D., relationships..."
    
    Ray

    How many children have been conceived just because their parents wanted
    to enjoy themselves on a cold winter night?  Does anyone think that
    there are a large number of children born because two people loved
    each other very much and wanted to create a new life together as a
    wonderful expression of their love?  Childbirth is not one of your more
    pleasant tasks (any ladies want to confirm this since I can't speak
    firsthand?) and I don't think pregnancy ranks up there too high on the
    list of favorite things to do for 9 months for most women.
    
    If the whole reason for the continuance of the human race is the
    enjoyment of sex, then I think we are doomed to extinction in the very
    near future.  With the birth control methods available now, we can all
    enjoy sex without much fear of pregnancy.
                                    
    							John

    re: .6:

    > Does anyone think that there are a large number of children born
    > because two people loved each other very much and wanted to create a
    > new life together as a wonderful expression of their love?  

    > If the whole reason for the continuance of the human race is the
    > enjoyment of sex, 

    Sure, but I think you're missing the point that human beings picked up
    this trait in a time when we were not as intelligent and certainly not
    as educated.   Over many thousands of years the enjoyment of sex only
    needs to increase the odds of reproduction only a small amount to have
    become a prevalent trait at this time.

    - M

    I don't think that the continuance of the species requires sex to be
    enjoyable at all - look at the rest of Life On This Planet. Not to
    say that some critters don't enjoy sex, but for nearly all of them it's
    a programmed, once-per-season activity - a compulsion, if you will. The
    rest of the time they're not interested in it at all.
    
    I've read speculations that the reason people evolved away from being
    "in heat" and towards enjoyable-all-the-time sex was to promote a
    couple's remaining together until the children reached maturity, since
    human children are dependent for so long. [I'm not sure I believe this
    one, but <insert favorite higher power here> works in mysterious ways.]
    
    Given that it is no longer necessary to have a male-female family unit
    in order to survive (that's if it ever was really necessary), it would
    be interesting to see how society would change if humans switched over
    to a once-a-year mating season. Given the amount of energy we devote to
    attracting members of the opposite sex, the change should be pretty
    dramatic... 
    
    -b

PLEASE oh please don't be offended by this....
    	
    	what would happen to Homosexuality?  If sex were only for 
    procreation, then would there be variants in sexually oriented
    individuals???  OK OK - so when people are attracted to their
    own sex then do we argue that it is based on a 'sexual' 
    attraction? or do we say that it is purely and emotional/ego
    type of attraction.
    
    How very interesting I think.  A few of my morally self-righteous
    freinds argue that sex is for procreation and thus homosexuality
    is "wrong"...then we argue right or wrong according to whom?
    God - society ? But doesn't society use religious concepts as
    a basis for it's opinions in moral matters????
    
    
    You've really opened up a can or worms here....I guess life
    would be alot easier if we just "mated" every spring and
    didn't have to worry about the pursuit of that 'pleasure'...
    
    boy this is a good one!!!
    
    joe p

 No one would ever masturbate.

 The Doctah

RE.: .10

>	-< if sex were painful >-
>
>  No one would ever masturbate.

Except for the masochists.

-- Ron

    
    Re: Mike z.
    
    with an electric blanket it could turn into a real shocker. :-)
    
    d.

	Re 0.

	We wouldn't have any generations beyond Adam and Eve; thus
	we wouldn't be here discusing it.

    Real estate would be much cheaper.
    
    There would be medical coverage for Delayed Sex Syndrome.
    
    There would be popular local anasthetics for the genital areas.
    
    Test tube children would become wildly popular.
    
    Lingerie businesses would go broke.
    
    

There was a science fiction story in either Analog or Asimov's about a year
or so ago that postulated an alien race with exactly this trait.  Apparently
they forced themselves to go through with it anyway because they recognized
its importance.  Unfortunately, the author didn't develop this theme as
far as I would have liked, and it was downplayed as a minor subplot.  I will
see if I can locate the title, author and reference.

				Steve

    Aw, heck, we go through medical exams, even mammograms and
    proctoscopies (sp?) 'cause they're good for us.  People do things every
    day that are physically uncomfortable, yet necessary.  Add sex to the
    list and it would still happen, just not as frequently nor with so much
    titillation -- except for the masochists among us.
    
    Karen
    
    PS - Believe it or not, some people do suffer from physical and/or
    mental discomfort during the sex act.  Thank your lucky stars and any 
    gods you worship if you are not among them.
                            

    	It's totally different if it always caused discomfort,
    	than if from now it did.
    
    	If it always did, we wouldn't be here.
    
    	If it did from now on, things might not change all thatt
    	much, or very gradually.  I'm a believer that the mind and
    	habit are incredibly strong in people.  Men and woman would
    	still pursue each other for the status of getting another,
    	and the close company and psychological intimacy it makes
    	possible, and for economic reasons.  Look at the couples 
    	where abuse is present that still stay together!  It's
    	about the same thing.  I'd bet a lot that 30% of US marriages
    	have little or no sex (that includes very religious people
    	whose church says no birth control and they've had enough
    	kids and that's the only way to stop having kids, plus
    	a lot of others where one party really never liked sex
    	that much anyway); I don't care what the polls say; people
    	don't respond or tell the truth in such polls.
    
    	It would take eons before old habits subsided and new
    	ones developed.  Men and women would discover they don't
    	like each other all that much.  More people than ever would
    	live alone, and use new social gathering customs to compensate.
    
    	Yes?

    
    I think we would mate every spring just when , and I know I'm going to
    hear about this one , the female of our species went into heat.... I
    don'tthink pleasure or displeasure would come into... think of the
    porcupine, now that can't be that plesant an experiance... It is the
    nature of all mammals to procreate, Nature would take over give us a
    mating season as it were and insure either our survival or our
    destruction thru whether or not we had mastered ourselves over the
    force of nature that drives all sentient creatures,I consider 'lesser'
    animals to be sentient to a certain extent, to mate.... That is a
    basically proven law of nature and we would have continued to reproduce
    until we became sentient enough to overcome our own nature and change
    it... By that point we more than likely would have devised a way for us
    to reproduce without the painful side effects or nature itself may have
    changed it herself.... That is my HLO (humble lamans opinion)
    
    AK_ 

    Well if we're going to have to go back to animalistic mate-when-in-heat
    once-a-year tendencies.....I'd just as soon do it humanely.  I'd invest
    in novacain....
    
    -Jody
    

    >I'd invest in novacain....

I'm diabetic so needles don't phase me too much but, considering the body
parts involved here, Im not talking any shots! You call sticking a needle into
your private parts 'humane'?!?!?!?

Pete

    If sex were painful (and for cats, it is, at least for the female),
    and always had been, then our basic ideas and social *whatevers*
    associated with sex would surely be different, though I can't really
    imagine exactly how (guess I don't wanna think about it much ;)
    
    If sex were painful or discomforting in more than the usual manners
    (as mentioned before, for some, there IS discomfort--how much probably
    affects their views on sexual activity), then it would be for some
    reason.  The aforementioned female cats find sex painful because
    the penis of a male cat is barbed--the pain causes ovulation in
    the female.  Therefore, there's a REASON, albeit unfortunate, female
    cats experience quite painful intercourse, but that doesn't stop
    'em for doing it again.  ;)
    
    Okie, people are not cats, but I figgure if sex were painful then
    it would be, just like in cats, for some biological reason, and
    we'd have figured out what it was by now, and probably either decided
    that sex wasn't what we believe it is today, or 'fixed' the problem.
    To understand exactly WHAT would be different, you'd have to consider
    all the stigmas (if that is the correct word) attached to sexual
    activity today, besides the obvious procreation role.  Perhaps if
    sex weren't so much fun, then some other means of expression affection
    or the same amount of pleasure stimulation would exist.  
    
    
    ---kim

    I wonder if we'd even realize it was a "problem" that needed fixing?
    
    Jim
    

    The moral conservatives would be crying out against those who
    altered things so that it wouldn't hurt as being immoral etc.
    
    B

...and maybe there would be devices (like condoms) to stop it hurting?
T

    .25 > The moral conservatives would be crying out against those who
    .25 > altered things so that it wouldn't hurt as being immoral etc.
    
    Hmmmm.  But if it was unpleasant, it probably wouldn't occur to anyone
    that it was immoral.

    Bruce,
    
    You misunderstood me. If sex was naturally painful and through
    the wonders of modern medical science the hurt was removed and
    it was then pleasant or pleasurable, there would be thousands
    of people screaming that it was immoral to enjoy it. That the
    diety made sex painful and it would be immoral irreligous, sinful
    to go against the will of the diety.
    
    Bonnie

< Note 940.0 by HOTJOB::GROUNDS "Was Groucho a Marxist???" >
                              -< What if sex... >-
        
   Hi there,
	Obviously, this note got *abit* of interest...  I must admit, the title
alone caught my eye....8^).  I gave this topic some thought and even read ALL
replys to get "ideas" before I commented...
	One thing that noone seemed to touch upon was how age influenced sexual
attitudes.  I went to Catholic schools most of my childhood, and was always
"sinfully guilty" of those nasty "sex ideas" I had.  Of course as I grew older
and more promiscuous, my morals took a backseat to my hormones...
	Now that I'm married with children, to coin a phrase, sex has become a
mutual gratification, with many more added responsibilities...smile.  So, not
that this was going anywhere when I started...  my 2�s is that any senses that
get destroyed, such as sight, sound, etc. seem to give one the fanatical urge
for more...
	SO, if SEX became a terribly painful activity, instead of a wonderfully 
rewarding, (both physically & mentally), experience, I'd bet that many humans 
would feel more incensed about performing this "horrid" exercise, in hopes 
that, through group activity, a "cure" could be found...(tongue firmly in cheek)

/Mic

If Sex was Painfull,

Sex wouldn't Sell, 

and Madison Avenue would have to find some other way to make a living...

Jim.

         Something else would have to take a higher importance.  Food
    maybe?  "Hey Bob, did you see the chocolate chips on that cookie?"
    
                                  Greg

I find it easy to empathize with lesbians, after all, we both like women!

I find it harder to empathize with gays, in that I'm not attracted to the
same things they are attracted to.

Bisexuals on the third hand, I feel like they just have widers tastes then
I....

Jim.

	If sex were painfull?

	I love to suffer.