The notion that reproductive motives are virtually behind all human sexual phenomena is flawed. Obviously, reproductive motives play a part in some human sexual phenomena. However, many evolutionary psychologists make the fatal error in assuming that it is mandatory to explain human sexual phenomena by exclusively using theories that are grounded in procreation. Very often, many people who oppose many kinds sexual behavior on moral grounds use parts of these theories. For instance, heterosexists insistently argue that homosexual behavior is deviant because if fails to bear children. As a result, they conclude that those who are homosexual must have been victims of a traumatic experience such as sexual abuse. In addition, evolutionary psychologists assert that there must be a subconscious reproductive motive for all sexual behavior even if the subjects involved in such sexual behavior do not consciously desire children. They claim that the urge to have sex is a biological urge to reproduce merely on a genetic level. Therefore, this desire often is not on a conscious level. However, many sexual acts which are distinct from sexual intercourse fail to reproduce. Very often these sexual acts are preferred over intercourse. Do you believe that all or most of the motives behind human sexual behavior are based on procreation? How do you accommodate this belief when many sexual behaviors are entirely unrelated to procreation?
This is absurd. Our species's most important distinction from all other creatures is our massive forebrain. It is so large that it gives us the unique ability to override the instinctive behavior of our lower brain with reasoned and learned behavior. An example that I frequently tout on SciForums because it seems to come up so often is our ability to override our pack-social instinct (our ancestors lived in small extended-family units who had trusted and cared for each other since birth and regarded all other packs as competitors for scarce resources), in response to our modification of our environment (growing our own food instead of chasing it, resulting in the first food surplus this planet had ever seen, which both permitted and required combining multiple packs into ever-larger permanent settlements), so that to a great extent we now live as herd-social animals like bison (offering a minimal level of respect and tolerance toward anonymous strangers, many of whom are now on the opposite side of the planet, mere abstractions to us until one dies like Neda, a member of an "enemy" pack, and Americans weep for her). Because the 12,000 years since the Agricultural Revolution are not nearly enough generations for a species with a 15-25 year breeding cycle to undergo a major mutation, deep down inside every one of us is still a caveman with that pack-social instinct. Every now and then one of us reminds us of that by reverting to Paleolithic behavior, such as killing a stranger or appropriating his wealth. (Yes we sometimes even kill pack-mates, but that is much rarer.) But for the most part we are able to transcend our genetic heritage and live quite contentedly in a way that our Stone Age forebears could not have understood or approved. The same is true of all morality, including sexuality. From the moment of birth our parents start teaching us new ways that are--in a modern civilization--better than the old ways that are programmed into our synapses by evolution. We've already gone a long way toward separating copulation from reproduction. This pretty much removes all reasons for the taboo against homosexuality... except sheer inertia, which is a powerful motivator. And monotheistic religion, an aberrant path down which we somehow were diverted on our way to progress.
I actually agree with the evolutionary psychologists to an extent. I don't believe we are capable of over-riding our biology anymore than other mammals. However we are human and like our cousins the Bonobo we use sex as more than just for procreation it is also how we relate to one another and reinforces our bonds with others. If that produces another human than that is a plus (evolutionarily speaking). There is some emerging evidence that cultures who have sex more often and more freely tend to have less conflict. But I guess it could be said that the desire to feel close to other people or just to feel pleasure might be an evolutionary adaptation to make us reproduce. There may be several instances where our sexual actions would not produce any offspring, but you are bond to have intercourse eventually the more often you engage in sex, it seems to be programmed within our genes.
I think procreation is a side effect of our drive to have sex. If it were the other way around why wouldn't every coupling result in a baby.
Watch a male dog claw his way through a door and muster enough adrenaline to jump over a fence three times his height when he pseudo-smells the pheromones of a female in estrus half a mile away. As a dog breeder I assure you that there is absolutely no way to train dogs--a rather trainable species--to override this instinct. We have to keep them in separate rooms at opposite ends of the house with the windows shut. It's easier to train them not to bark, and that is almost impossible. A few other species do the same thing. Dolphins, for example. The key is whether females are physically capable of copulation outside their estrus cycle. In most species they are not. The bonobo, Pan paniscus, is the quintessential example. They are the free-lovin' hippies of the jungle. The "true chimpanzee," Pan troglodytes, on the other hand, is murderous and duplicitous enough to star in a soap opera. The discovery that they are different species is quite recent, and zookeepers used to mix them in the same enclosure. This must have been torture for the bonobos. The drive to have sex is ancient, going back far beyond the development of our species's massive forebrain that gives us the luxury of thinking about our actions in exquisite detail. I'm sure the social aspect is a recent development. The fact that every coupling does not result in a baby is an inevitable byproduct of this, since in species like humans, bonobos and dolphins the female is statistically very unlikely to be at the proper point in her estrus cycle for fertilization to be possible. Some evolutionary biologists see evidence that the bonobo is the species most closely related to Homo sapiens, and this certainly correlates with our similar sexual behavior. Unfortunately it does not make us as peaceful as they are, a rather humbling observation. We must be missing a few key bits of their DNA.
Have you considered the effects that Twinkies are having on sexual behavior, and thereby reproductive activity? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It is at least as much of a factor (.783%) as sanity or insanity are. :bugeye:
That behavior isn't in our genes, as it is in other species. But the behavior that is in our genes we usually do a poor job of overriding usually because we aren't even aware that we are doing it. For example women who are ovulating dress more provocatively, act more flirtatious and are more willing to have casual sex than they are at other times. The behavior was even observed in women who had devoted themselves to a religion that frowned upon the behavior, suggesting that social factors were not enough to change this behavior.
