The Sex, the Violence, the Hideous Crimes in the Holy Bible: Lot’s Story

[markc]

Catch 22?? It has been so many years since I read that that I have no memory of bawdy parts. I do think it is a dangerous book. I might have died laughing.

Somehow comedy might be the best response to such a blindingly stupid law.

Ah, thanks for the reminder! I see now, I should have started with what's going on in Florida and the like before going on the Bible. Thanks!

[Marcus]

Catch 22?? It has been so many years since I read that that I have no memory of bawdy parts. I do think it is a dangerous book. I might have died laughing.

Somehow comedy might be the best response to such a blindingly stupid law.

Totally agree. Catch 22 was simultaneously the funniest and the most heartbreaking book I ever read.

[Chap]

You seem to have missed out on some important things.

Sure, humans have figured out that it feels good and have long enough memories (about the sex they've had in the past) to want to recreate the experience for sheer pleasure rather than reproduction, but that doesn't overturn the fact that the point of sex is to propagate the species.

You might as well say that the point of our chewing, swallowing and breathing apparatus is just to get food and oxygen into our bodies, and completely ignore the uniquely human use of this apparatus for speech, which is hugely important to us as the basis for the complex social structures of cooperation that have enabled a slow, weak and relatively toothless creature to survive and multiply itself in a hostile world. In humans, this apparatus is multifunctional, and if we only used it for what much simpler creatures use it for, we would simply not be able to survive as humans. We would not even be humans.

Similarly, the sex organs in non-human creatures may just serve for reproductive purposes, and even then only at very particular times (as for instance in the case of dogs, that only have sex at the times when the female is on heat). But in humans, who are able to have sex throughout the whole of their reproductive span, sexual relations serve many social functions apart from simply procreating.

There is no a priori way (absent a belief in a creator deity whose intentions are claimed to have been revealed to us) of deciding what the 'real point' of any given human activity may be. All we can do is observe the functions that it serves in practice. And sexual activity in humans clearly serves a wider range of functions than procreation alone.

[Dr. Shades]

Sure, humans have figured out that it feels good and have long enough memories (about the sex they've had in the past) to want to recreate the experience for sheer pleasure rather than reproduction, but that doesn't overturn the fact that the point of sex is to propagate the species.

. . . in humans, who are able to have sex throughout the whole of their reproductive span, sexual relations serve many social functions apart from simply procreating. . . And sexual activity in humans clearly serves a wider range of functions than procreation alone.

Umm, I acknowledged precisely that when I stated, "[H]umans have figured out that it feels good and have long enough memories (about the sex they've had in the past) to want to recreate the experience for sheer pleasure rather than reproduction[.]"

[Chap]

. . . in humans, who are able to have sex throughout the whole of their reproductive span, sexual relations serve many social functions apart from simply procreating. . . And sexual activity in humans clearly serves a wider range of functions than procreation alone.

Umm, I acknowledged precisely that when I stated, "[H]umans have figured out that it feels good and have long enough memories (about the sex they've had in the past) to want to recreate the experience for sheer pleasure rather than reproduction[.]"

Your post is concerned with stating what you consider to be "the point" of sexual activity, while acknowledging that people may also use it in ways that are "off the point". I reject the notion of sexual activity as having a pre-defined "point", and look at the ways it can be seen to play a variety of important functions within a human existence. That is the difference between us, and I suggest that it is a significant difference. But, as always, your mileage may differ ...

[Dr. Shades]

I reject the notion of sexual activity as having a pre-defined "point", . . .

You can reject the notion that the earth revolves around the sun, too, but I somewhat doubt that your rejection will alter reality very much.

. . . and look at the ways it can be seen to play a variety of important functions within a human existence.

Of course it plays a variety of important functions within a human existence. Automobiles also play a variety of important functions within a human existence, such as impressing lower-I.Q. chicks, phallic compensation devices, displays of wealth to assist the transition through a midlife crisis, etc. But that doesn't change the fact that the point of an automobile is to transport humans or cargo from Point A to Point B.

That is the difference between us, and I suggest that it is a significant difference. But, as always, your mileage may differ ...

It's more of an acknowledgement than a difference.

[yellowstone123]

TL;DR sorry. Lot’s story always touched me as dissing your neighbors (heck you’re writing the chapter) saying they were the inbred hillbillies and God says we get their land. I can’t believe in the 70s they had an Old Testament seminary year. I’m glad things didn’t leap out at me at 6:10 a.m. Total failure of old white men from Utah, Idaho men.

[Imwashingmypirate]

I actually thought the biological point of sex was to procreate and the pleasure, hormones and orgasms were part of a reward system to encourage people to make babies.

All the pleasure aspects are what makes humans want to have sex and so yes the point in the human mind, the means, is to have pleasure. But purely in terms of nature and biological processes, the point is to breed.

[Imwashingmypirate]

TL;DR sorry. Lot’s story always touched me as dissing your neighbors (heck you’re writing the chapter) saying they were the inbred hillbillies and God says we get their land. I can’t believe in the 70s they had an Old Testament seminary year. I’m glad things didn’t leap out at me at 6:10 a.m. Total failure of old white men from Utah, Idaho men.

I'm sure we had an Old Testament seminary year.

[Chap]

Your post is concerned with stating what you consider to be "the point" of sexual activity, while acknowledging that people may also use it in ways that are "off the point". I reject the notion of sexual activity as having a pre-defined "point", and look at the ways it can be seen to play a variety of important functions within a human existence. That is the difference between us, and I suggest that it is a significant difference. But, as always, your mileage may differ ...

My post was followed by others reasserting views of what "the point" of human sexual activity is.

Now when we talk about the 'point' of some action, are we not normally dealing with a situation where it is assumed that a person of some kind is attempting to make something happen or to achieve some end? 'The point' is then the end that they have in view. If we believe that the world was made by some kind of Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity, then it is the intentions of that deity that give 'point' to such things as human sexuality. But the problem there is that the only way we can allegedly learn what the deity intended is (since deities are apparently very reluctant to address us directly) to wait for someone to announce that they are a prophet, and hope they will tell us what the deity is trying to achieve.

So if we don't allow deities in on the act, it is hard to see how we could ever agree what "the point" of (say) human sexuality is. Science does not, therefore, deal with 'points', since there is no way we can decide on such things by observing the world - so called 'teleological' explanations of nature have long been banished from scientific discourse. We can, however, observe human sexual behaviour objectively, and see what happens as a result of it - we can determine its 'function'. And there are clear signs of certain features of human sexuality being functionally disconnected from procreation - thus, for instance, it is utterly unnecessary for procreative purposes that human females should, unlike most other mammalian females, be potentially sexually receptive on a more or less continuous basis, rather than only a few times a year as is the case with other mammalian species that seem to have no problem maintaining their numbers. It is clear on the other hand that this is connected with certain unique features of human sociability. And so on.

If people want to continue to assert that X, or Y, or Z are 'the point' of human sexuality, it would good if they could explain in non-theological and non-teleological terms how they have ascertained what 'the point' is.