QotD: Pleasurable Sex
Posted September 8th, 2003 @ 09:31pm by Erik J. Barzeski
Question: If sex were not a pleasurable activity, by what percent do you think the world's population would be smaller?
My Answer: 50%. If sex weren't pleasurable, I think that a great many people wouldn't have sex except to have a family or to get more welfare money. "Accident" babies would be gone, teen pregnancy might very well vanish, and, well, as if I know! I'm saying 50% and sticking to it!
You are encouraged to answer the Question of the Day for yourself in the comments or on your blog.
Donate Life
Posted 09 Sep 2003 at 12:15am #
Uh... to get more welfare money? Does anyone actually do this? At the risk of starting some political argument, I gotta doubt it; it fails to pass a simple cost-benefit analysis.
On the other hand, I understand that (back in the day) farm families strove to bear a lot of children in order to be laborers, so maybe the welfare thing isn't so farfetched.
My answer is 100%, by the way... having sex as a routine, in order to procreate, requires that the participants be smart enought to see long term benefits. But intelligence would never have evolved if the species died out for lack of procreative activity. 's my take, anyhow.
Posted 09 Sep 2003 at 2:49am #
I would say the population wouldn't be much smaller. Maybe by 10% smaller.
The point is, having a baby is also a pleasure; to raise a child, to have an offspring...
So many people are deciding to have a baby not because of the sex pleasure but because of the pleasure of a child.
Posted 09 Sep 2003 at 7:40am #
I would think that rape would go, too.
Posted 09 Sep 2003 at 8:36am #
If you think that, then you misunderstand rape. It is about power and control, not pleasurable sex.