Assume having sex was not pleasurable and took great effort.
Population would be less and children would only be born to parents who really, really wanted them.
Would this make for a better world?
Assume having sex was not pleasurable and took great effort.
Population would be less and children would only be born to parents who really, really wanted them.
Would this make for a better world?
Depends on what your definition of ‘better’ is really.
The process of obtaining sex is already labor intensive and painful. Pregnancy and raising the child is also labor intensive. I don’t think it’d make a difference.
I think it would make for extinct humans, personally.
Whether or not that’d be a good thing… well, that’s up to you.
I think the OP means if the physical act itself was painful, like in a venus flytrap kinda way, or random penis spikes that trigger at unknown time intervals. Otherwise, I agree… “Obtaining” sex is labor intensive, and can be painful (more so for males, IMO). I’m sure it could be average in dollars per hour, as well as time invested, in getting the deed sealed if not taking the path of prostitution.
That is a serious issue in evolution though, people who are busy spending their time and energy looking for and appealing to mates instead of reproducing asexually have less time to do things like search for food. If you look at all the time and energy we spend primping, dieting, grooming and dating in the modern human race it is questioned by some why we developed sexual reproduction at all.
Even if sex itself were painful I don’t think it would matter much. Labor is painful and women still get pregnant.
Uh, genetic recombination?
Newsflash: Humans didn’t invent sex.
You’re right. Sex invented humans!
FWIW, I’ve read that the sexual act for female cats is not pleasant. Yet their nature during oestrus compels them to perform it anyway. That and the aggressiveness of the tom. There is no shortage of cats.
But is the only creature who knows that sex leads to babies, which we didn’t always know. We would have to have a reason to have this painful sex that you discribe in your OP to get to the point that hey this leads to children was discovered. In most of the animal kindom it is a drive, simular to hunger, that makes sex happen, not pleasue - it is a way to have that feeling go away.
OK lets go beyond that and lets just say that God told us how it works, now what. Well if it were just painful for one of the genders, which we would commonly think of females, then they would not have a choice in the matter. If it were males who got pain from sex, and again assume that males were the ruling class, the job of sex would go to male slaves I would WAG. I could also see some class structure set up, esp. if sex was painful to both genders, that would be a breeding class - they would be forced to reproduce for society.
Looking at these, I would say that we would be a more oppresive society, as forced sex would be needed for our long term survival.
Brilliant. Golf claps.
On another note, black widows & praying mantises devour the male during sex, but sex still happens. So it still wouldn’t matter.
Uh, having & finding sex is very calorie & labor intensive, which is effort that could go into other survival acts. Plus you drastically limit the number of progeny you have with sexual reproduction.
Thank god for PBS though. I watched Sesame street when I was little, now I get to watch shows like this
I disagree. While it is labor intensive to search out sex, and the results of sex can suck up time and money and be painful, there is still the immensely pleasurable act, which is what drives the behavior.
Take away the reward of the sex act, and the search for a mate changes drastically. I’d say that kanicbird has the right call. Forced sex to maintain population.
As for the whole “Is sex worth it?” argument for passing on genes, I recently saw a study of an organism that could reproduce both sexually and asexually. The asexual reproduction added around 4 times as many genetic errors as sexual reproduction. Sorry for no cite, but it was on a reputable news site in the last couple of weeks.
Half our literature would disappear.
Also most of our daydreams.
Also a large part of our reason for living.
“Where are all the football stars? And where are the biochemists? …All civilisation was just an effort to impress the opposite sex. And sometimes the same sex.”
(From ‘I dated a robot!’, cheesy sex ed movie on Futurama.)
If you changed the question slightly to this:
Would the world be better if all children were planned and wanted by parents who were willing and capable of caring for them? (and the process for creating them was a little more time and labor intensive so only people who really wanted kids had them)…
Then I would say that definetly YES the world would be a much much better place.
Really? I mean, my first instinct is to agree, but when I think about it…people who pay thousands of dollars for fertility treatments are not always better parents than parents of “oops” babies. The best parents I know personally are those who became parents by accident and it forced them to get their act together. The parents I know who took years or expensive medical treatments to get pregnant tend to be spoiled, self-centered assholes who think their kids are the center of the universe and don’t teach them a damn thing about the real world or how to get along in it OR don’t give them a second glance once they’re no longer infants.
Sure, being an unwanted kid sucks. But not all unplanned babies are unwanted kids. And not all planned babies are wanted kids.
Well for one thing, premature ejaculation would no longer be seen as a bad thing. “My husband is good in bed, it only takes 30 seconds!”