Google the male G spot. You'll find your answer.
Yeah, so? That doesn't mean that don't like other stimulation as well. They probably still like blow jobs. Some women enjoy anal sex too. Some people like all kinds of sex. :shrug:
You do realize that is most likely not intended, right? Considering that most men don't much care for what is necessary to stimulate that, well yeah, your argument is stupid.
I do believe that is not what is "intended" because none of it is "intended". And why don't most men care for it? Isn't that just social pressure.
I do believe that is not what is "intended" because none of it is "intended". And why don't most men care for it? Isn't that just social pressure.
It's important to be mindful of this distinction because it avoids burdening questions about what we should do with considerations of what evolution intends us to do - that's nonsensical, we shouldn't care about what evolution "intends" us to do because evolution doesn't intend anything, it can't intend. (on a side note, even if evolution did have an intent, so what? Why should we do what evolution wants? **** her. :lol. Evolution isn't any sort of guide on what we should do. That's ultimately up to us and to decide according to our own wishes and goals.
Quite frankly I (and most probably most people) don't give two ****s about evolution or spreading my genes. I have sex because I enjoy it. If I ever have kids it's going to be because I want the experience of raising children and because I want to help give another person the experience of life, not because evolution wants me to propagate my genes.
You're not getting it. On no level whatsoever does what you're suggesting work if the reproductive element is removed.
People didn't start rubbing up against one another for no reason just because it felt good, and then magically discover that babies came afterwards.
What almost certainly happened was that some species way back when was pleasurelessly having sex, and some members of the species simply happened to adapt in such a way that it felt "good" as well. Those individuals were more likely to pass on their genes than the ones who reproduced without pleasure, and so their lineage survived where the others did not.
This is basic cause and effect here. You've simply got the order backwards.
Because having things forcibly inserted into a tight and naturally unlubricated muscular sphincter which is pretty specifically meant to keep what's inside the body in, and what's outside the body out, tends to be painful, and sometimes even dangerous, perhaps?
Because having things forcibly inserted into a tight and naturally unlubricated muscular sphincter which is pretty specifically meant to keep what's inside the body in, and what's outside the body out, tends to be painful, and sometimes even dangerous, perhaps?
I think part of the disagreement here is that "reasons" has different meanings. A reason can refer to intent (why did you quit your job?) or it can refer to how something came to happen (why won't my car start). It's an important distinction because only conscious beings have intent (it's not like your car is refusing to start because she's pissed she caught you looking at the neighbor's new BMW :lol.
So, since evolution is not a conscious being (if you want to talk about evolution being an extension of God's will, fine but it's God's intent then, not evolution's and that's a whole other can of worms anyway) and cannot have intent, "why" questions about evolution are better asked as "how" questions. Not "Why does sex feel good" but rather "How it came to be that sex feels good". Evolution explains how it came to be, not why. When sex feels good to an animal, that animal will tend to procreate more often, and over time the animal that procreates more often will come to be more prevalent. That is how sex came to feel good to humans. There is no "why" sex feels good. Evolution didn't intend for sex to feel good; evolution doesn't intend anything. Evolution is just an explanation for how the animals that currently exist came to exist in the state that they do.
It's important to be mindful of this distinction because it avoids burdening questions about what we should do with considerations of what evolution intends us to do - that's nonsensical, we shouldn't care about what evolution "intends" us to do because evolution doesn't intend anything, it can't intend. (on a side note, even if evolution did have an intent, so what? Why should we do what evolution wants? **** her. :lol. Evolution isn't any sort of guide on what we should do. That's ultimately up to us and to decide according to our own wishes and goals.
Quite frankly I (and most probably most people) don't give two ****s about evolution or spreading my genes. I have sex because I enjoy it. If I ever have kids it's going to be because I want the experience of raising children and because I want to help give another person the experience of life, not because evolution wants me to propagate my genes.
So you're suggesting that at some very primitive point in our evolution, sex was purely motivated by the instinct to procreate and that the pleasurable aspect of it evolved later by chance? Then, because it felt good for some those animals did it more often so they came to outnumber the species that did it less?
Um, no. Have you read about this at all?
Social pressure breaks down a bit when those that expect a certain behavior are not around. It's why girly boys can be all feminine around one crowd and act completely differently around another.
Simply put, because going against evolution tends to result in rather poor outcomes much of the time.
Attitudes along the lines of what you describe above have basically lead populations to go into free fall in many parts of the world, and it's unclear when, if ever, they will recover.
Sure, you can rebel against the natural order of things if you want. However, if it's only going to lead to death in the end, what's the point? :shrug:
Yeah, I have. It's not a vagina.
The thing isn't adapted to be penetrated.
and some don't. You think for one minute that the bedroom is actually the place where a man who is concerned about appearing virile and manly would be most inclined stop concerning himself with the social conventions that he believes make him appear virile and manly?? Um, no.
Apparently you are wrong.
No, I'm really not. :lol:
The significantly increased risk for injury with anal sex and the general necessity of artificial forms of lubrication more than speaks to that much.
Apparently you are wrong.
Yes, well you may have sex because it feels good, but mother nature has her own reasons for sex feeling good. I believe it is designed to feel good so that you will want to do it.
Of course, because we are intelligent creatures, we are aware that sex leads to babies, so we use precautions.
It's not like it's something you would be aware of anyways.
MOST men are attracted to beautiful healthy-looking and young women.
There are reasons for this.
Well, apparently it is pretty popular. I guess adaptation has occurred.eace
Mother nature can't "design" anything because mother nature isn't a conscious being. If you believe mother nature is a conscious being, then I think you've got a few screws loose.
Uh-huh.
Why, Chris, you wound me!
Uh-huh.
If you mean "reasons" in that there is a series of events that caused it to be this way, yes. If you mean "reasons" in that there was some intent for it to be this way, then no.
Mother nature is a figure of speech, I thought you might realize that. :roll:
We don't just have sex for the sake of having sex.
Okay, I guess you agree with those statements.
Yes, we were intended to reproduce, just like all animals.
To say otherwise is just . . . stupid.
:lol: This is almost exactly what I pointed out. People use "mother nature" and "designed" as figures of speech. There is no mother nature and evolution didn't design us. The problem is when people, such as yourself, often forget this and take the words literally. As if mother nature literally "intends" us to do anything. That's ridiculous, it's a figure of speech. Evolution doesn't actually intend for us do anything.
Who said that? Certainly not me.
That's what "uh-huh" usually means, yes. :mrgreen:
Only as a figure of speech. Not literally.
To say otherwise is to recognize the difference between a figure of speech and reality.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?