The Issues of Sex (Clean Article)
Updated: Nov 16
(For more on the subject, click here)
The Drive to Reproduce
As much as we are social beings, we are also sexual beings. Even those who are more solitary than social are not necessarily asexual. This is because it is more imperative for biological beings to have children than it is to communicate with others. It is a biological imperative to reproduce, but not communicate. While communication is important, it is not essential for survival as procreation is. Especially social communication. Having children, on the other hand, is essential for the survival of the species. Those who do not reproduce enough, or at all, risk putting their lineage at jeopardy.
Some people believe that having children is mandated by the heavens or that it is an essential part of adulthood. Regarding the "mandated by the heavens" belief, it is evident. Others may feel pressure from their parents or other family members to have children. That is even though they decide to have children is a personal one. When it comes to gender, women are often more stressed about having children than men. This is because women are the ones who carry and give birth to children. Some may even, you know, secure themselves a man just to get pregnant.
Some people believe that women's reproductive systems are only meant to be used for reproduction. They argue that women should not have the choice to have an abortion or to use birth control. I disagree with this view. I believe that women have the right to choose what happens to their own bodies. Their wombs are their property, and they should be able to do with them as they please.
There is something very conflicting about sex when it comes to humanity. Due to the dominance of the three Abrahamic religions, homosexuality is seen as something morally wrong in the eyes of many. Are LGBTQ people not legitimate in their endeavor to live and to be accepted like anyone else?
Whatever your thoughts on the matter may be, it is very logical to assume that we cannot learn how to be attracted to something we are not attracted to in the first place. This could entail that sexuality is innate, rather than learned, even if it develops later in life.
Here are some additional thoughts on the matter:
There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that homosexuality is a choice. In fact, studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality. For example, one study found that gay people have different brain structures than the same gender.
LGBTQ people are just as capable of love, commitment, and happiness as anyone else. They deserve to be treated with respect like any other human being.
It is important to note that not all members of any group are the same. I devised a theory that can suggest this as true. There are good and bad people in every social category, and the LGBTQ community is no exception. It is unfair to judge an entire category of people based on the actions of a few. As it is unfair to judge said category with traits it does not necessarily have in its entirety, as that will be a generalization fallacy.
If I were to show you a car and force you to be sexually attracted to it, chances are you would not be successful. There are people who are attracted to cars and other machinery, known as mechanophilia. But, according to the reasoning I found, it isn't necessarily a choice one can change like any other preference. Whether a disorder or not is an issue that can be compared to autism. As some autists may claim that being on the spectrum isn't a disorder but simply a neurological diversity. That is the reasoning I'm talking about, applicable to unorthodox sexual orientations. Due to lack of normalcy in this field I wouldn't mind being proven wrong. It's part of the job.
This is the whole idea behind LGBTQ people: Unless one is asexual, we are all attracted to something or someone, and it is not necessarily a conscious choice. Even if the source of our attraction cannot collaborate with us in the process of actual reproduction, the sexual attraction cannot be denied. It may be reduced due to a variety of reasons, but I failed finding sources that claim it can be lost permanently. You can try to repress it, but it is still a part of who you are. As such you can just become asexual.
The whole thing with same-sex attraction is ironic because it is not "natural," AKA, according to the biological imperative, to be attracted to someone who cannot bring offspring into the world. And yet, it exists. Does it make it a disorder or a disease? I argue that not, just like the desire of not having children is not a disorder or a disease. We either way do not have to have children if we do not want to. The choice itself, embedded uniquely in humans, is not a dysfunction when it is, you know, a natural feature of who we are. And r*** is not morally justified, just because procreation is imperative for the survival of our species.
In addition, some people are too unfit to have children, and you know that, I believe. They can be very poor and abusive parents and traumatize their children. Hence the idea of parenting licenses.
As such, the biological imperative does not comply every single human to procreate. For that matter, people who cannot procreate due to other reasons, such as permanent injuries in the reproductive system, can still have other reasons to live. After all, aside from their contributions to society, there are other biological imperatives in play, such as group forming. Would an excellent leader of an organization that does good for the world, be deemed irrelevant just because he or she might not have biological successors?
By the way, the gaining, holding and protection of territory is also a biological imperative as organisms need a physical space to exist in. It is unreasonable to say that soldiers who died to protect their country failed to achieve their purpose, when in reality they sacrificed their lives for us. Procreation isn't sufficient because we never exist in a vacuum, and as such there are other factors of existence to consider.
Surprisingly enough there is a spectrum of asexuality. I'll not dive too much into it right now. Even though most of us have the means of reproduction, some of us have no inherent desire to have sex with anyone, male or female. Some of us are straight-out anti-sexual, and they may deem sexual activity as disgusting.
You can at least learn from the example of this article, that not everything in existence has to have an objective purpose. That includes organs, as women, for example, do not have to use their wombs if they don't want children. How come? Potential is not necessity.
Sex As an Obsession
Anyways, the point still stands -- many if not most of us are sexual beings even if we will never have children. It is very imperative as it is psychological and also a social activity. Something in the mere act can make one very passionate, to the risk of addiction, to the point it will become their central aim in life. There is something very pleasing in it as there is traumatic. It may play a role in our ego, as some of us may disregard it from our egos... Like when I wrote my thoughts about incels.
All because of a single, simple act which this site is too respectful to mention it here explicitly. It's so simple, and yet a concept so chewed by humanity, it will be resumed being so indefinitely. Erotica, romance (usually) and so on -- all are very popular genres/industries that will probably keep on giving until the end of the human race, all thanks to said action. It is probably humanity's most chronic obsession.
As an asocial man, I don't know if I'll understand what is so appealing about sexual relations, to the point of obsession. Like the example with the attraction to machinery, I can't force myself to be obsessive for something that is in a lower priority. I know I can bring children to the world, but even if I wanted to do so, there is this obstacle that is called my existence. And everything in my life revolves around work. Still, I understand I am intuitively transmuting my energies for Philosocom. That's how I still managed to work on this article empire during the Reaping Fatigue Era.
Either way, the reproductive organs, goes further than just mere reproduction. Some may even consider them tools for power and control. We aren't mere robots who just have happened to be able to multiply. It's both a blessing as it is a curse. It can bring life as it can even bring death.
What we can conclude from all of this is, sexuality is a part of who we are, even if we lack it. Since we are different people with different affinities, that also applies to sex regardless of what kind of people are you attracted to, if at all. Human beings are very diverse beings those innate diversity is yet to be fully agreed upon as such. Or even as completely legitimate.
Unlike many other traits that can be changed through exercise, sexuality is bound to stay with us, whether we have yet to discover what it is or if we're well aware of it. Some people, you could say, are just not attracted to the "right" people for reproductive reasons. Will it doom humankind?
Probably not, as there are enough straight people to sustain the human race. In the U.S, their number isn't significant enough to risk population growth. But if it's true that sexuality is innate and unchangeable -- being straight is simply one way of having a sexual tendency. It's the most practical, for sure, but far from being the only one. It is desired by many that one shall be straight, but what sorcery can completely eradicate the one's heart, and the other's heart below the belt?
Final conclusion -- sexuality doesn't have to be directed at reproduction in order for one to practice it. That is true as having sex as fun and even healthy, as it is for the average non-straight man or woman. Perhaps animals will be capable of reproducing many successors, but, perhaps, the sexual complexity of many humans is far more complicated than that of an animal in the correspondent season.
Final Insight -- Sex Drive and Love as Spontaneous
It is the same in sex as it is the same in love -- you can't force yourself to love someone you don't, even if you both will be going to live together for a long time. Was every marriage meant to be fated? Judging by the high divorce rates, it's very unlikely. If you will be going to be married to a murderer, are you meant to be murdered, especially if you know they're a killer? There are no soul mates. There is love, attraction, partner maintenance, and for many, sex.