Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Skullery Maid

Wanting To Have Sexual Intercourse For The Purpose of Having A Baby Is Still Sexual Desire

Recommended Posts

Float On

If someone desires sex because the idea of getting pregnant makes them horny, then it is obviously sexual desire (and IMO impregnation fetish is not unusual).

But if someone desires the outcome and the sex part is "meh" thing you need to do to get it, then no. Example: most people desire driving license, few desire driving school.

oh, I see, so desire literally involves horninesss now. if i don't look at a cookie and get horny, then I don't really desire it, all of a sudden my diet just got so much easier! thanks.

or maybe you mean that "sexual" has to have horniness involved. I like that one better! now, if some dude sticks his dick in a girl, but he's flaccid the whole time, then they didn't really have sex!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snao van der Cone

You really have no clue what asexual means, do you.. Honestly, sometimes I feel bad for the asexuals here, they're at least as misrepresented as sexuals, and they can't even speak up about it because they'll be considered asexual elitists and gatekeepers.

:huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heart

Just for the record, how efficient is turkey baster as a method of getting pregnant?

When done right, apparently the same as with intercourse.

http://www.babymed.com/home-artificial-insemination-get-pregnant-turkey-baster-method

I... honestly though that was just an expression. I had no idea you could actually do that :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

You really have no clue what asexual means, do you.. Honestly, sometimes I feel bad for the asexuals here, they're at least as misrepresented as sexuals, and they can't even speak up about it because they'll be considered asexual elitists and gatekeepers.

Thank you, Tar. I don't care if I'm considered a gatekeeper or even an elitist, although I have no idea why we'd be considered that when we are simply explaining how we feel.

Desire for a child is NOT desire for sex with a person. If I could do 60 point on that, I would.

Yes, you could do it with a turkey baster. But if you happen to be married, or partnered, that's not going to be acceptable to the partner. If you're not married or partnered, you'd have to find someone whose history you know and who will be willing to jack off into a container while you wait. Or you'd have to depend on a sperm bank which can't give you trustable info on the donor. Other methods are expensive, time-consuming, and often don't work.

Intercourse is the most reliable method. Relying on that method does not demand anything of a woman except allowing penetration. Desire is not necessary. I'd think the experience of women being impregnated by rape would prove that, but geez, Skullery, you must be extra-stoned today to come up with your weird claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jade Cross
No kids for me thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spookchi Boonut

After some thought, this actually reminds me of religious people. A lot of religious adults deeply believe sex is only for procreation. I assume most of them desire children and while they want sex, they don't equate it with pleasure the same way someone else might. They have a specific reason they want sex and that's procreation. So I think I finally understand what you're saying. I also agree that it may not necessarily determine what label they use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sage Raven Domino

A lot of religious adults deeply believe sex is only for procreation. I assume most of them desire children and while they want sex, they don't equate it with pleasure the same way someone else might. They have a specific reason they want sex and that's procreation.

That they don't sin doesn't mean they're never tempted (to have sex for bare pleasure, not procreation).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

The fundamentalist religionists I know don't feel that they can't find pleasure in sex. What they do believe is that when having sex, they must be open to pregnancy. They don't use birth control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027

I thought it was obvious that when we talk about "sexual desire" here it's implied that it's for personal sexual gratification, not for any other reasons like wanting a kid or appeasing a partner. In those cases, you want the kid, or to appease the partner. Those are not what most people mean here by sexual desire. In those cases the sex is just a means to an end. If you're truly experiencing sexual desire, the sex IS the end that you're going for.

What you're saying is like saying everyone in the workforce must like their jobs because they want to get their paychecks. I'm pretty sure plenty of people in the workforce will not necessarily be on board with that claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fire & Rain

All I can think of now is asexual footjob lol Anyway I don't want kids. So, I have no strong opinion on the matter. Both yours and opposing views make some good points.

You really have no clue what asexual means, do you.. Honestly, sometimes I feel bad for the asexuals here, they're at least as misrepresented as sexuals, and they can't even speak up about it because they'll be considered asexual elitists and gatekeepers.

I've been accused of gatekeeping a few times now. If I was the kind of person who wants crowd's approval rather than speaking out an honest opinion, I would probably feel offended by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

The fundamentalist religionists I know don't feel that they can't find pleasure in sex. What they do believe is that when having sex, they must be open to pregnancy. They don't use birth control.

I've mentioned Augustine of Hippo a bunch of times (the guy to whom we owe pretty much the entire sex-negativity of Christianity, and compared to whom Paul was a bleeding-heart liberal).

Going by Augustine's teachings, enjoying sex is always bad, having sex at all is never a good thing... it only becomes defensible (as in, not automatically a mortal sin) if you explicitly do it as a "neccessary evil" with procreation directly in mind as the goal... optimally, the number of times you had sex in your lifetime should equal the number of kids you have.

The guy obviously had some major issues, and would have rated as ragingly antisexual by AVEN's standards. Unsurprisingly, the way he describes his youth before his conversion, he comes across as a "recovered sex addict"... one extreme to another isn't exactly an unheard of phenomenon.*

* Theoretically speaking, of course. Not that we have anyone specific in mind, like, in regards to romance instead of sex, or anything. Ahem. :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

The fundamentalist religionists I know don't feel that they can't find pleasure in sex. What they do believe is that when having sex, they must be open to pregnancy. They don't use birth control.

I've mentioned Augustine of Hippo a bunch of times (the guy to whom we owe pretty much the entire sex-negativity of Christianity, and compared to whom Paul was a bleeding-heart liberal).

Going by Augustine's teachings, enjoying sex is always bad, having sex at all is never a good thing... it only becomes defensible (as in, not automatically a mortal sin) if you explicitly do it as a "neccessary evil" with procreation directly in mind as the goal... optimally, the number of times you had sex in your lifetime should equal the number of kids you have.

The guy obviously had some major issues, and would have rated as ragingly antisexual by AVEN's standards. Unsurprisingly, the way he describes his youth before his conversion, he comes across as a "recovered sex addict"... one extreme to another isn't exactly an unheard of phenomenon.*

* Theoretically speaking, of course. Not that we have anyone specific in mind, like, in regards to romance instead of sex, or anything. Ahem. :blush:

Most American Christian fundamentalists are not Catholic and know nothing of Augustine. Their pastors attend divinity schools in in the Bible belt, not the Jesuit schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

He's still part of their religion's history and has played a role in its tone regarding sexuality... having lived around the time of split-off between Catholicism and Orthodoxy (and actually being one of the major points of contention between them), he long predates all of the many, many Protestant denominations that emerged as split-offs from Catholicism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

He's still part of their religion's history and has played a role in its tone regarding sexuality... having lived around the time of split-off between Catholicism and Orthodoxy (and actually being one of the major points of contention between them), he long predates all of the many, many Protestant denominations that emerged as split-offs from Catholicism.

Mysticus, American Christian fundamentalists aren't taught Church history; they're taught know-nothing Protestant theology. I'm around some of these guys in the community work I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

I guess I still keep giving America way too much intellectual credit. -_-

(All the more reason to be in favor of religious education being made mandatory in all public schools!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

I guess I still keep giving America way too much intellectual credit. -_-

(All the more reason to be in favor of religious education being made mandatory in all public schools!)

Not in America -- we'd get nothing but Christian stuff because that's considered to be "our" religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)

This is kind of like saying that aces who have sex with their partners to make their partner happy must be desiring the sex on some level because there are other options for making a partner happy. Also, you could just leave your partner, but instead you're choosing to stay and giving them sex.. sooo, you must on some level be desiring the sex.. ergo: sexual, not asexual.

I'm still upset about the whole ''I love sex, I enjoy it and for this reason I have it.. but not because I desire it, just because it feels good.. I'm asexual because I only have sex because it feels good.. not because I desire it'' ...Beause I mean, there are sexual people who literally only have sex because it feels fucking good and if it didn't, they wouldn't bother.

If someone is choosing to have sex over IVF or shoving a turkey baster inside their vagina (shudder) just so they can have a baby... that's not ''I want sex because it pleases me and I enjoy it'' ..it's ''I want a baby and this is the most natural way to do it, so let's get this shit over with''

But meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

Overlooked this one...

[...] and the pubic bone of another person smackin' into you... [...]

Humans don't have penis bones [...]

Penis bone =/= pubic bone.

To the best of my knowledge, all healthy humans (i.e., injuries or deformities notwithstanding), regardless of sex, have a pubic bone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

I'm with the others who disagree on sex for a baby being sexual. It can be a means to an end if someone is indifferent to sex. On the first point I would for myself just call it attraction on the basis of who I desire in a partner excluding sex, but otherwise I agree. I agree fully on the second and third part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer

So, yes, I believe that if you want to have sexual intercourse for the purpose of getting preggers and having a child, you are experiencing sexual desire. In a technical sense, this makes you a sexual, not asexual (though obviously the sexual desire is so limited, there'd be no practical reason to ID as sexual). Still, I think it matters in a very real sense that we stop acting like the desire to fuck "doesn't count" under ridiculously arbitrary circumstances. If, inside of you, you want to have intercourse, the reasons are irrelevant. Internal desire is internal desire. Below are reasons why I think it's important for us to stop with the parsing of "desire".

I disagree with that part of your post in particular.

The desire in your example is not aimed at sexual intercourse but at having children. It's not a "desire to fuck", it's a desire to reproduce.

It's the same with the "traditional" way argument. The desire is aimed at following (how would I word this properly?) the "tradition" which "happens to be" sexual intercourse. If it were, dunno, eating four watermelons a day for five weeks straight, they'd "desire" that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoom

The desire in your example is not aimed at sexual intercourse but at having children. It's not a "desire to fuck", it's a desire to reproduce.

It reminds me of the pro-life "argument" that if you decide to have sex, you agree to pregnancy. Ummm... since when? I think I would have noticed if I ever agreed to getting pregnant :-p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snao van der Cone

If a lesbian has sex with a man to get impregnated that way, does that make her not a lesbian? (I know almost all of your answers already, so this is mostly rhetorical :P)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jade Cross
It totally does :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

Just to note, Skullery herself repeatedly said she doesn't think it'd make you sexual. So that's not the argument.

But Skullery made a point that it's a matter of quantity, i.e. if you only do it in that specific circumstance to get pregnant, that's rare / exotic enough not to affect your orientation. I disagree with that. I think it's a qualitative issue, and that having sex for specific somewhat "rational" reasons, is an entirely, qualitatively different matter from instinctive sexual desire the way we sexuals experience it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

Desire for a child is NOT desire for sex with a person.

desire for a cookie is not desire for chocolate, sugar, and batter, baked to perfection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

The desire in your example is not aimed at sexual intercourse but at having children. It's not a "desire to fuck", it's a desire to reproduce.

It reminds me of the pro-life "argument" that if you decide to have sex, you agree to pregnancy. Ummm... since when? I think I would have noticed if I ever agreed to getting pregnant :-p

deciding to have sex is literally taking the risk of becoming pregnant. in that sense... thinking a pregnancy couldn't happen when you have sex, is being foolish and irresponsible.

but well "pro-life" no, having sex is not deciding to have a baby. that view's kind of.... forceful and rude....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dissolved

So, yes, I believe that if you want to have sexual intercourse for the purpose of getting preggers and having a child, you are experiencing sexual desire. In a technical sense, this makes you a sexual, not asexual (though obviously the sexual desire is so limited, there'd be no practical reason to ID as sexual). Still, I think it matters in a very real sense that we stop acting like the desire to fuck "doesn't count" under ridiculously arbitrary circumstances. If, inside of you, you want to have intercourse, the reasons are irrelevant. Internal desire is internal desire. Below are reasons why I think it's important for us to stop with the parsing of "desire".

I disagree with that part of your post in particular.

The desire in your example is not aimed at sexual intercourse but at having children. It's not a "desire to fuck", it's a desire to reproduce.

It's the same with the "traditional" way argument. The desire is aimed at following (how would I word this properly?) the "tradition" which "happens to be" sexual intercourse. If it were, dunno, eating four watermelons a day for five weeks straight, they'd "desire" that.

(Not directed specifically at you, Mr. S, but just quoting the post that inspired the thoughts)

But if the yearning is for children and there are other ways to get pregnant (ignoring costs and success rates for a second), then why would anyone go though the ordeal of sex?

If, as so many people here claim sex to be so abhorrent, why do they still want children? The way to procreate is sex, so if IVF and whatnot didn't exist, there would be no other option. It is how our species continues to exist, so somewhere, but probably not even remotely coherently in our brains, is: sex = babies. Even if sex is means to an end, we as a species are programmed to want to procreate. Individuals escape this on a conscious level of course - I for one have no desire to pass on my terrible genes - but I no doubt on an underlying level still have something somewhere that tells me I should do so.

One of the issues on AVEN is that everything is assumed to be a conscious choice or decision or feeling or whatever. "I've never thought the exact words 'I want to fuck that person' therefore I've never felt sexual attraction therefore I'm asexual can I have my badge now please?" seems to be really common. Thoughts, desires, feelings, impulses... all that crap, aren't coherent. If you have a yearning for children and the way to accomplish that is sex, then yeah, I see why it's an indirect desire for sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoom

The desire in your example is not aimed at sexual intercourse but at having children. It's not a "desire to fuck", it's a desire to reproduce.

It reminds me of the pro-life "argument" that if you decide to have sex, you agree to pregnancy. Ummm... since when? I think I would have noticed if I ever agreed to getting pregnant :-p

deciding to have sex is literally taking the risk of becoming pregnant. in that sense... thinking a pregnancy couldn't happen when you have sex, is being foolish and irresponsible.

but well "pro-life" no, having sex is not deciding to have a baby. that view's kind of.... forceful and rude....

Taking some risk is not equal to agreeing with the (insert some bad outcome). When I am sexually active, I do pregnancy tests every week so I don't need to spend 2.000 € on an abortion (I am on hormonal b/c so it is much easier to miss the early signs) - absolutely acknowledging the risk and absolutely refusing to proceed with the pregnancy. Which is something these people ignore, they see sex and pregnancy as something inherently related. Someone even told me that sex is the only way humans are made. Ummm, were they living under a rock for the last 30 years? So then I am not surprised the put sex + love + pregnancy together in on box, e.g. "if you had sex with X you obviously love X" (especially if you are female) and "if you really love the man you want to have his baby" and "you should love her, she is the mother of your child".

"Sex for fun" is something different from "having sex for procreation" - because in this case, sex is an instrument for getting something (a baby), not the purpose.

I think that it is similar to prostitution, for example. Or "having sex so I can talk about it" or having some "revenge sex" (being promiscuous to piss off your jealous ex). The person does not care about sex, they want to get something else (money, baby, social status, revenge, calories burned...). And if they could get it through immaculate conception or winning a jackpot, they would prefer this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
m4rble

So, yes, I believe that if you want to have sexual intercourse for the purpose of getting preggers and having a child, you are experiencing sexual desire. In a technical sense, this makes you a sexual, not asexual (though obviously the sexual desire is so limited, there'd be no practical reason to ID as sexual). Still, I think it matters in a very real sense that we stop acting like the desire to fuck "doesn't count" under ridiculously arbitrary circumstances. If, inside of you, you want to have intercourse, the reasons are irrelevant. Internal desire is internal desire. Below are reasons why I think it's important for us to stop with the parsing of "desire".

I disagree with that part of your post in particular.

The desire in your example is not aimed at sexual intercourse but at having children. It's not a "desire to fuck", it's a desire to reproduce.

It's the same with the "traditional" way argument. The desire is aimed at following (how would I word this properly?) the "tradition" which "happens to be" sexual intercourse. If it were, dunno, eating four watermelons a day for five weeks straight, they'd "desire" that.

(Not directed specifically at you, Mr. S, but just quoting the post that inspired the thoughts)

But if the yearning is for children and there are other ways to get pregnant (ignoring costs and success rates for a second), then why would anyone go though the ordeal of sex?

If, as so many people here claim sex to be so abhorrent, why do they still want children? The way to procreate is sex, so if IVF and whatnot didn't exist, there would be no other option. It is how our species continues to exist, so somewhere, but probably not even remotely coherently in our brains, is: sex = babies. Even if sex is means to an end, we as a species are programmed to want to procreate. Individuals escape this on a conscious level of course - I for one have no desire to pass on my terrible genes - but I no doubt on an underlying level still have something somewhere that tells me I should do so.

One of the issues on AVEN is that everything is assumed to be a conscious choice or decision or feeling or whatever. "I've never thought the exact words 'I want to fuck that person' therefore I've never felt sexual attraction therefore I'm asexual can I have my badge now please?" seems to be really common. Thoughts, desires, feelings, impulses... all that crap, aren't coherent. If you have a yearning for children and the way to accomplish that is sex, then yeah, I see why it's an indirect desire for sex.

By that line of thinking it would make a lot more sense to say wanting sex is subconsciously wanting to reproduce than the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoom

I've seen all variations on this topic.

Sexual desire is subconscious desire to reproduce.

Birth control failure is subconscious desire to reproduce.

Cervical cancer is subconscious hatred of your own feminity.

Some people are just weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...