TV shows involving sex

Pepsiguy

Argument Topic: They hurt

@alierosey31
They promote fornication, homosexuality, lgbtqrstuvwxyz "acceptance", transgenderism, promiscuity, hook up culture, teen sex, abortion, etc. Besides I would never watch a netflix original in my life - in fact I wouldn't watch any original from any streaming services. I FREAKIN' LOVE MY DVDS!!

OakTownA

@Pepsiguy

So do you believe it helps or harms? Why?

MichaelElpers

@OakTownA

It hurts because it promotes a culture where sex is solely viewed a pleasurable action.

This in turn has destroyed the family unit increasing the amount of divorces and single parent children, who unfortunately get the short end of the stick.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

It hurts because it promotes a culture where sex is solely viewed a pleasurable action.

Thats the sort of culture that needs promoting, sex is pleasurable 

This in turn has destroyed the family unit increasing the amount of divorces and single parent children, who unfortunately get the short end of the stick.

That sounds like something uttered from the pulpit by  a religious zealot 

MichaelElpers

@Dee

Who cares who it sounds like it's uttered from it's true.  Having two parents two parents is one of the most consistent leg ups a child can get to keep them out of poverty.

This type of culture doesn't promote that.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

The topic of the debate remains  TV shows involving sex  your off on a personal rant straight from the Catholic Churches play book  , "this type of culture " ......LOL

MichaelElpers

@Dee

The topic is about whether they benefit or hurt the way millennial view sex.
This is directly tied to an influence on culture.

I stated how it influences and why that influence has a negative impact. That is a direct response to the question.

You seem to think that simply saying that an organization you disagree makes my statement wrong.  I evaluate an argument based on the substance. So what did I say that was false?

OakTownA

@MichaelElpers

"It hurts because it promotes a culture where sex is solely viewed a pleasurable action."

I don't see a problem with this.

"This in turn has destroyed the family unit increasing the amount of divorces and single parent children, who unfortunately get the short end of the stick."

Do you have any data to back up your assertion?

Dee

@MichaelElpers

The topic is about whether they benefit or hurt the way millennial view sex.

Your contention is that sex being seen as a pleasurable activity is somehow wrong 

This is directly tied to an influence on culture.

Enjoing sex has a negative impact on culture ? Do tell

I stated how it influences and why that influence has a negative impact

Well yes you're in line with the Catholics stance on such , you're still a Catholic I guess as they have  always seen sex as something loathsome and sinful unless it was them raping kids 

. That is a direct response to the question.

 So can you back your assertion up without going into Catholic dogma ?

You said .....It hurts because it promotes a culture where sex is solely viewed a pleasurable action......So can you back your assertion up without going into Catholic dogma?

You seem to think that simply saying that an organization you disagree makes my statement wrong.  

Well yes it's the same organisation that sheltered Nazis and hides child abusers 

I evaluate an argument based on the substance. So what did I say that was false? 

Yes through the lens of your Catholic bigotry . You said this and didn't offer the slightest bit of reasoning for your delusional rants

......It hurts because it promotes a culture where sex is solely viewed a pleasurable action.

This in turn has destroyed the family unit increasing the amount of divorces and single parent children, who unfortunately get the short end of the stick.

MichaelElpers

@OakTownA

What data are you looking for me to back up?

1. That viewing sex solely as a pleasurable act increases willingness to have sex outside of marriage which in turn has much higher divorce rates or out of wedlock children.

2. That culture and media can play a role in this outlook.

3. That children outside of stable 2 parent households are worse off.

Or all the above. Which points do you think don't have data?

MichaelElpers

@Dee

This is not in catholic dogma, although it is a common viewpoint.  However you still have not actually argued my point.  Again saying catholics agree with it doesn't make it wrong.  They also agree 1 plus 1 is 2.

I never said enjoying sex has a negative impact.  I said solely viewing as only a pleasurable experience does because... it creates negative outcomes for children who are now born into more single parent families.

So where is your contention.  That children are not worse off or that it doesn't contribute to single parent outcomes?

Pepsiguy

Argument Topic: I think its better for you to quit than to continue spewing garbage on a screen

@Dee

The reason why sex evolved is for the reproduction of the species. Sex is pleasurable because your mind is telling you "hey we completed the mission of continuing the species". This is pure logic and science.

Also families are important. Without family kids wouldn't be raised to live.

Also, things like hook up culture and promiscuity cause things like STDs - which is not pleasurable in the slightest.

YOU SHOULD STOP CALLING EVERYTHING YOU DON'T LIKE THE RESULT OF A "RELIGIOUS NUT" BECAUSE YOU SOUND LIKE BACKWARDSEDEN FROM DEBATE.ORG

OakTownA

@MichaelElpers

"What data are you looking for me to back up?

1. That viewing sex solely as a pleasurable act increases willingness to have sex outside of marriage which in turn has much higher divorce rates or out of wedlock children.

2. That culture and media can play a role in this outlook.

3. That children outside of stable 2 parent households are worse off.

Or all the above. Which points do you think don't have data?"

The first one, which is your main premise. Would you agree that the amount of sex on television has increased in the last decade or two?

OakTownA

@Pepsiguy

"The reason why sex evolved is for the reproduction of the species. Sex is pleasurable because your mind is telling you "hey we completed the mission of continuing the species". This is pure logic and science."

Then why are there species for whom sex is not pleasurable? If sex is purely for reproduction, why don't humans go into heat, and only have sex when fertile?

"Also families are important. Without family kids wouldn't be raised to live."

People are raised without families all of the time. Just look at the foster system. Also, what a family looks like has changed over the years, and can vary from culture to culture, so what kind of family are you talking about? Family can also really mess up a person. Toxic families are very real, and can lead to long term mental health challenges, like CPTSD. Finally, families and children are not synonymous, as a person can have a childless family.

"Also, things like hook up culture and promiscuity cause things like STDs - which is not pleasurable in the slightest."

Unprotected sex leads to STI's. A person can have unprotected sex for the very first time and pick up a STI. Conversely, a person can have protected sex with dozens of different partners and never contract a STI. Contracting a STI these days is not as concerning as it has been, as of the eight most transmitted STIs, the four most commonly transmitted STIs are curable with a course of antibiotics, one now has a vaccination and will often be killed by a person's immune system, and the other three are treatable. None are the death sentence they used to be.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/sexually-transmitted-infections-(stis)

MichaelElpers

@OakTownA

Yes I would agree with that.  I assume your counter would be that divorces recently have actually experienced a slight decrease so maybe I made a slight misstatement...  This has created more single parent households and less nuclear families.

Children are just more likely to be born out of wedlock and in less stable family households.  There's been a decline in marriage overall which has it own issues as well.

https://www.childtrends.org/publications/dramatic-increase-in-percentage-of-births-outside-marriage-among-whites-hispanics-and-women-with-high
er-education-levels

https://marripedia.org/effects_of_out-of-wedlock_births_on_children

Pepsiguy

OakTownA said:

@Pepsiguy

"The reason why sex evolved is for the reproduction of the species. Sex is pleasurable because your mind is telling you "hey we completed the mission of continuing the species". This is pure logic and science."

Then why are there species for whom sex is not pleasurable? If sex is purely for reproduction, why don't humans go into heat, and only have sex when fertile?

"Also families are important. Without family kids wouldn't be raised to live."

People are raised without families all of the time. Just look at the foster system. Also, what a family looks like has changed over the years, and can vary from culture to culture, so what kind of family are you talking about? Family can also really mess up a person. Toxic families are very real, and can lead to long term mental health challenges, like CPTSD. Finally, families and children are not synonymous, as a person can have a childless family.

"Also, things like hook up culture and promiscuity cause things like STDs - which is not pleasurable in the slightest."

Unprotected sex leads to STI's. A person can have unprotected sex for the very first time and pick up a STI. Conversely, a person can have protected sex with dozens of different partners and never contract a STI. Contracting a STI these days is not as concerning as it has been, as of the eight most transmitted STIs, the four most commonly transmitted STIs are curable with a course of antibiotics, one now has a vaccination and will often be killed by a person's immune system, and the other three are treatable. None are the death sentence they used to be.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/sexually-transmitted-infections-(stis)

Why do you bring up other species? This is about human sex, not bonobo sex. 
Foster families are also families that need to be structured in a way that helps kids.
You are more likely to spread stds if you sleep with 100 partners. STDs like aids are not curable.


@OakTownA

OakTownA

@MichaelElpers

"Yes I would agree with that.  I assume your counter would be that divorces recently have actually experienced a slight decrease so maybe I made a slight misstatement... "

Not a slight decrease, but a 50 year low.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-us-divorce-rate-has-hit-a-50-year-low

"Children are just more likely to be born out of wedlock and in less stable family households.  There's been a decline in marriage overall which has it own issues as well."

What is your proof that sex on TV is the cause or contributes to the decline? Are more children currently being born to parents who are not married? Yes. What evidence do you have that these households are less stable? From your own link:

"Most immediately, the percentage of births that occur outside of marriage is determined by three factors: 1) the proportion of women who are married, 2) the fertility rate of married women, and 3) the fertility rate of unmarried women." Not a single mention of promiscuity. Also, just because the parents are not married does not mean that the child will grow up in a single parent household.

OakTownA

@Pepsiguy

"Why do you bring up other species?"

Because you said "The reason why sex evolved is for the reproduction of the species. Sex is pleasurable because your mind is telling you "hey we completed the mission of continuing the species". This is pure logic and science." I notice you did not address my point about going into heat if sex is just about reproduction of the species. Also, if your assertion is, as you claim, "pure...science," you should be able to post links to studies that support your position. Please provide studies that demonstrate "sex is pleasurable because your mind is telling you 'hey we completed the mission of continuing the species.'"

"Foster families are also families that need to be structured in a way that helps kids."

Agreed. However, not all foster children end up with foster families. Many spend their entire time in group homes.

Since you seem to only want to respond to my first sentence, I will re-post:

Also, what a family looks like has changed over the years, and can vary from culture to culture, so what kind of family are you talking about? Family can really mess up a person. Toxic families are very real, and can lead to long term mental health challenges, like CPTSD. Finally, families and children are not synonymous, as a person can have a childless family.

"You are more likely to spread stds if you sleep with 100 partners. STDs like aids are not curable."

Not if you use protection. Again, UNPROTECTED sex is the key here. It only takes having unprotected sex once with someone with an STI to contract it, even if the person in question is a virgin. Did you even read my response? While HIV is not curable, it is very TREATABLE, and no longer carries the death sentence it once did. Is getting sick fun? Not typically. Is it the end of the world if a person contracts a STI? Nope.

MichaelElpers

@OakTownA
Part of the low can possibly attributed to people not getting married in the first place. When promiscuous people don't get married at all it lowers the amount of marriages that were probably doomed.

"What evidence do you have that these households are less stable? From your own link:

"Most immediately, the percentage of births that occur outside of marriage is determined by three factors: 1) the proportion of women who are married, 2) the fertility rate of married women, and 3) the fertility rate of unmarried women." Not a single mention of promiscuity. Also, just because the parents are not married does not mean that the child will grow up in a single parent household."

I'll note determination and cause of these determining factors are two different things.
Number 2 and 3 seems to just be saying women are getting married later and thus younger women are more fertile.

I don't see how you could think that portraying sex solely as a pleasurable experience doesn't contribute these factors or having children out of wedlock.
Here's just some logical reasoning.

1. If you believe that sex is just a pleasurable experience between two people and has nothing to do with an interpersonal relationship that could lead to having kids, you are more likely to have more sexual encounters and with more people. By basic probability promiscuity would increase this risk.

2. When one of these encounters results in pregnancy those who do not have marriage or longterm relationship on there mind are far more likely to not stay together.  Who's more likely to make it work a one night stand tinder date or a couple in a relationship considering marriage?

3. As the study says marriage has declined and cohabitation has increased.  I'd have to assume that's largely culturally motivatated and culture is shaped in part by media.  If you don't think that than why even ask the question in the first place?

As far as your last comment do you really think that children of unmarried parents have the same rates of stable 2 parent households as married individuals. 

"Although many children born outside of marriage will thrive, research shows that they are more likely than those born to married parents to be poor, experience multiple changes in family living arrangements as they grow up, and face cognitive and behavioral challenges such as aggression and depression (Child Trends, 2016). While cohabiting parents are more likely to marry after the birth of their child than parents who don’t live together, cohabiting unions are generally less stable than marriages and put children at increased risk for adverse outcomes"

Conclusion: When you view sex more than just a pleasurable experience like watching TV, rather than reserving it to someone you are willing to spend your life with you reasonably more likely to be together if kids are involved in the picture.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

This is not in catholic dogma, although it is a common viewpoint

It actually is I was Catholic long enough to know this , so it's a popular viewpoint but it's not Catholic dogma .........

A dogma of the Catholic Church is defined as "a truth revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church declared as binding."

However you still have not actually argued my point.  

Your point remains ....It hurts because it promotes a culture where sex is solely viewed a pleasurable action.

You followed up this statement by making several statements totally unrelated to people viewing sex as pleasurable 

Again saying catholics agree with it doesn't make it wrong.  

Well your church through the pope has praised the 'wonderful' Ratzinger and claimed he was a great theologian , so yes I don't trust a word out of a Catholics mouth to be honest as they collectively mourn a former Nazi who defended child molesters and moved them to safer havens  

They also agree 1 plus 1 is 2.

Funny that when they view 1 as 3 as in god , the son and the holy goat 

I never said enjoying sex has a negative impact.  

You actually said .....It hurts because it promotes a culture where sex is solely viewed a pleasurable action.

"Hurts " is implying a negative impact 

I said solely viewing as only a pleasurable experience does because... it creates negative outcomes for children who are now born into more single parent families.....

Unsubstantiated claim , most everyone I know has always deemed sex pleasurable , you're projecting the traditional view of the Catholic Church who traditionally viewed sex as functional and nothing else , taking pleasure in sex ford sexes sake was always looked on as sinful 

So where is your contention.  That children are not worse off or that it doesn't contribute to single parent outcomes?

The burden of proof is on you to prove your claims you cannot do this so deflect by asking me to prove your unfounded assertions wrong 

Your views are straight from a narrow minded mouthpiece for the church Pat Fagan and his wacky Marripedia site 

Dee

@Pepsiguy

Argument Topic: I think its better for you to quit than to continue spewing garbage on a screen


Ha , Ha this from you who ran from the abortion debate because you cannot defend your nonsensical rants regards womens rights to bodily autonomy 

Argument Topic: I think its better for you to quit than to continue spewing garbage on a screen as in your contention that a doctor who aids in abortion should be executed ....are you Saudi Arabian?


The reason why sex evolved is for the reproduction of the species. Sex is pleasurable because your mind is telling you "hey we completed the mission of continuing the species". This is pure logic and science.

Stop talking about things you know f--k all about I don't know a single human being who ever thought " "hey we completed the mission of continuing the species". What do humans think when they don't have sex to procreate? "hey we haven't completed the mission of continuing the species"......you say the most mind numbingly st-pid things and the tragedy is you think you're saying something profound 

So this statement is "pure logic and science ?  "hey we completed the mission of continuing the species"......show us your "pure " science papers and articles you base this b-ll on?

Also families are important. Without family kids wouldn't be raised to live.

Important to who? What are you babbling on about?

Also, things like hook up culture and promiscuity cause things like STDs - which is not pleasurable in the slightest.

Ever hear of safe sex ? 

YOU SHOULD STOP CALLING EVERYTHING YOU DON'T LIKE THE RESULT OF A "RELIGIOUS NUT" BECAUSE YOU SOUND LIKE BACKWARDSEDEN FROM DEBATE.ORG

Ah the last refuge of all nuts type only in block letters. But I don't do that except when dealing with American Christian's which the majority of the US happens to be , these nuts actually believe Jesus would carry a gun , refuse free healthcare/education to all , No minimum wage, no social housing because Americans believe social policies that  Jesus preached are actually Socialism which American religious nuts like you detest , yet on Sundays only American Christian's  agree with the words of Jesus then back to being a follower of Republican Jesus on Monday 

Dee

@MichaelElpers

One of your go -to sites is owned by Dr Patrick Fagan a mouthpiece for the Catholic Church and founder of Marripedia a site where every view is biased as it's through the narrow minded finger wagging moralising of the Catholic Church 

John_C_87

@alierosey31

Are they having sex or are the shows preteneding to have sex for attention?

MayCaesar

I started looking at nude women online when I was 12, and watching porn when I was 14. These are about the most materialistic/animalistic depictions of sexuality you can find in the media space. How did these influence me? They did not: in my mind I clearly separated what was shown on the screen from what happens in the real world, and at no point did I think that this actress giving a handjob to this actor at a gas station was a reflection of my future sex life.

What DID have an effect on me is shunning of these displays. In the country where I grew up things like pornography were a huge taboo, and I remember my parents switching a TV channel due to a short sex scene in an awesome movie, because they thought I was not "old enough" to watch this kind of content. As a result, I have developed a bit of a phobia, and to this day my subconscious associates sex with something devious, something to be ashamed of. Even when I am in my room alone watching a sex scene in a movie, I feel quite uncomfortable and have the urge to look around to make sure that no one sees me and gets wrong ideas.

Sex is an essential part of human experience. It is pleasurable and, when done with the right person, loving. It also facilitates expansion of family. It should be venerated and celebrated, not shunned and shamed. People who watch the Game of Thrones and want to reenact the sex scenes from there are pretty deviant already, and most people can figure out that there is a difference between fiction and reality.

I would like to see sex and sexuality normalized. I would like it to be normal for two coworkers to talk like this: "Hey, you are beautiful. Want to have a dinner and sex tonight?" "Oh, thanks for the offer, but I have this project to finish... Maybe tomorrow?" Having open sex with multiple people does not imply that you cannot have someone special who you love the most and want to build a family with - it just implies that you are an adult who knows what he/she wants and likes and prefers to have an interesting and adventurous life. Having a single exclusive sex partner for 50+ years is not everyone's cup of tea, and that is perfectly fine.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

Pornography can effect people differently, I'd say just because you were able to compartmentalize it doesn't mean that's the same for everyone.  I'd also find it hard to believe those experiences didn't shape you, when you think shunning them did. My guess I'd you just don't find them to be negative experiences.

"Having open sex with multiple people does not imply that you cannot have someone special who you love the most and want to build a family with - it just implies that you are an adult who knows what he/she wants and likes"

On an individual basis you are correct but playing the stats, those who take this approach are far more likely to not end up in a relationship and forsake their children.  That's my issue.  You can get on as many Rollercoaster rides as you like, but if that creates dependency of another individual there's more to the equation.

It's also unclear to me why if sex is just a pleasurable interaction why there are so many laws surrounding it. Like why does someone need to be adult to consent to a pleasurable experience? Why is prostitution illegal?

MayCaesar

MichaelElpers said:

@MayCaesar

Pornography can effect people differently, I'd say just because you were able to compartmentalize it doesn't mean that's the same for everyone.  I'd also find it hard to believe those experiences didn't shape you, when you think shunning them did. My guess I'd you just don't find them to be negative experiences.

"Having open sex with multiple people does not imply that you cannot have someone special who you love the most and want to build a family with - it just implies that you are an adult who knows what he/she wants and likes"

On an individual basis you are correct but playing the stats, those who take this approach are far more likely to not end up in a relationship and forsake their children.  That's my issue.  You can get on as many Rollercoaster rides as you like, but if that creates dependency of another individual there's more to the equation.

It's also unclear to me why if sex is just a pleasurable interaction why there are so many laws surrounding it. Like why does someone need to be adult to consent to a pleasurable experience? Why is prostitution illegal?

Adults shunning children for doing something affects their psychology in a very profound way, which was well documented centuries ago. Kids routinely shamed for doing something, or even told that doing something that they do not do is shameful, develop all kinds of phobias. In heavily religious families a well documented systematic problem is people having a hard time getting an erection before sex, because all the conditioning painting sex in an extremely negative light kicks in, and the anticipation of the upcoming pleasure is heavily outweighed by the feelings of shame and disgust implanted into their brains.
Watching porn on a screen? Whatever it can develop in the person, it is not going to be that.

I view it from the perspective of the individual. However it may sound, I do not care that much what general societal impact individual choices may result in. Everyone should do whatever is best for them, not for the abstract society.

There are many reasons behind existence of these laws. One obvious one is the views on sex common in religions, which I described above. But even those views may have a deeper source...
I think that the underlying cause of all this sex shaming in general is the natural opposition between sex and political power: sex is arguably the most intimate experience possible between two individuals, and when two individuals loving each other engage in hot sex, in their worlds only they exist - nothing else does. If you live in a society in which you are supposed to worship the tribe, or the chief, or the nation, or the king, or the general secretary, or god - then, when you engage in sex with your loved one, you essentially show the middle finger to that entity. In North Korea, do you really love the Dear Leader the moment you experience an orgasm in bed with your lover? You cannot be allowed to love someone so much, and you cannot be free to express that love in such an intimate way, when there is something else you are supposed to love above all.

If you ask me, there is nothing more beautiful in the world than love. And sex is one of the strongest ways of expressing love. There is also nothing more ugly than coercion and control, and when the society is dominated by the ugly, the beautiful becomes the enemy. Ever wonder why in all communist states the architecture always looks so bleak, so grey, so monotonous? Because the system is ugly, and the artistic perception becomes ugly as well. In the Soviet Union, they used to literally say, "In our country, there is no sex". Indeed, how can there be sex if there are black statues of Lenin all over the place? Love is the biggest enemy of any authoritarian, and there is a reason that control over love, sex and reproduction is one of the first things authoritarian regimes prioritize.

SkepticalOne

@MichaelElpers

This in turn has destroyed the family unit increasing the amount of divorces and single parent children

Have divorce rates increased? ...and if so, how can it be shown this is due to sex on tv?

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

I have a response to that above.  I misspoke by only including divorce I mean single parent households.

With do many influencing factors it's hard to directly prove but I made a response to oaktown above.

ZeusAres42

@SkepticalOne

@MichaelElpers

This in turn has destroyed the family unit increasing the amount of divorces and single parent children

Have divorce rates increased? ...and if so, how can it be shown this is due to sex on tv?

It's been a while but the last time I checked divorce rates had increased statistically at least within the western world within a spectrum of several decades despite minor increases or decreases being observed each year. Nonetheless, I wouldn't say sex in T.V shows is the cause of this.

There could be a correlative factor between divorce rates (not sure I would call it a direct one though) and sex in T.V shows. Nevertheless, with all things considered I doubt sex in T.V is a causal factor in higher divorce rates.

MichaelElpers

@ZeusAres42

I have already given a response to this in detail in the thread. I misspoke by only including divorce I mean single parent households.

If the belief is that media has no effect on behaviors why was the thread even started?  It's pretty clear that advertising certain things can effect people.  How much this has contributed to single parenthood households I cannot say.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

There are also plenty of documented negative responses to porn.

"I view it from the perspective of the individual. However it may sound, I do not care that much what general societal impact individual choices may result in. Everyone should do whatever is best for them, not for the abstract society."

I would agree with most of what you said here but I'm not arguing it should be illegal, just that it has an overall negative impact.  On an individual impact it does statistically have a negative impact on children.

"You cannot be allowed to love someone so much, and you cannot be free to express that love in such an intimate way, when there is something else you are supposed to love above all."

In my opinion society is attempting to remove the relationship between love and sex.  If it is only for pleasure love is not required.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

There are, indeed, some negative outcomes associated with viewing porn regularly - however, to my best knowledge, no proper separation of variables has been made in those studies, so causal connection here is unverified. Intuitively, it would make sense to me if, just like with video games, using porn as a form of escaping from one's problems (e.g. problems in dealing with the opposite sex) would be counterproductive, while using porn as a side entertainment while having the rest of one's life put together could actually be beneficial overall. I suppose, my general argument is not about whether watching porn in itself is harmful or not, but whether it being destigmatized would be.

"Overall impact" might be ill-defined. Suppose that porn helped 60% of the viewers with their sexual anxiety, while to the other 40% it was detrimental. How do we quantify the overall impact here? Is it positive because it helped more people than it hurt? Is it negative because it hurt some people who, in the absence of it, would be better off? This issue is further exacerbated by the fact that even for each given individual the effects of viewing porn may be mixed.

I am not sure I agree with this - or, rather, I think that this is an incomplete picture of what is happening. Disentangling sex from love does not imply that sex cannot be a manifestation of love - it simply implies that it does not have to be. Similarly, a bowl of delicious food does not have to be a dish to enjoy at a restaurant - it can be, but it also can be something that a starbing person eats solely not to die. Anything can have multiple functions, and pure physical pleasure can be the sole function of a particular instance for sex - it does not have to be that in all instances.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

Disentangling sex from love does not imply that sex cannot be a manifestation of love - it simply implies that it does not have to be.

I never said it had to be, clearly everyone can have different reasons.  I think it is a negative to detangle sex from love period. This leads to the negative outcomes for children I am concerned about. Those who have no feelings for each other are less likely to be ok raising a child together.

It also derails your previous statements about love and sex and its impact. Along with your statements about intimacy, ect.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

First, sex does not have to lead to procreation: in fact, statistically, only a tiny minority of sex encounters lead to pregnancy. Therefore, from the children perspective, sex without love in itself is not an issue.
Second, people may very well love each other, yet still make terrible parents. I remember reading that story from Belarus where two parents were playing some online game, the woman got sick of the infant in the other room crying, went and stabbed the infant to death, then came back and continued on with the game.
And third, for the lovers themselves, love is a double-edged sword: it is one of the most beautiful things in the world, but also one of the most dangerous ones. Out of love people sometimes can hurt each other terribly, and in many cases casual sex for fun and pleasure with someone one does not love can be much less burdensome, than intimate sex with the love of one's life.

I do not see any intrinsic problem with sex: like anything else, in various circumstances it can have negative or positive effects - or both. Alcohol can help you relax, can make it easier for you to socialize, can entertain your taste buds - it can also make you behave erratically, damage your health, waste a day lying unconscious. If you do not disentangle alcohol from any of these effects, then you make an objective error, for not a single one of those effects applies to every single instance of alcohol consumption. Sipping a new wine at a winery tasting event is functionally very different from drinking wine out of boredom in order to pass out as soon as possible - both have a use in some people's lives.