Yes, I know that some things are totally obvious, but once in a while this one needs to be proudly and joyfully proclaimed : "The two purposes of sex in human beings are pleasure and bonding." (The two can, of course, be delightfully combined into "pleasure-bonding" in a genuinely loving relationship, so for some, sex has only one purpose !)

Now, since what's traditionally considered the primary purpose of sex has been left out, you may be wondering if someone who appears too young to have had a course in basic biology should be writing for an adult site. But let me assure you that I graduated from Greenville Senior High (Go Green Wave !) so long ago that Lyndon Johnson was still "that new guy" in the White House, and though I learned absolutely nothing about sex there (not from "official sources," anyway ...), I have picked up a few shards of knowledge since, and I'm well aware that sex can also be used for reproductive purposes. But the key phrase is "can also be used for." When compared to how often its purpose is pleasure or bonding, the conscious and deliberate use of sex for reproduction now constitutes such rare and extraordinary circumstances for so many people today that it falls far short of a "purpose" basic or otherwise, and cannot be considered anything other than a "use."

True, there's little doubt that when sex is intended for reproduction, this is by far its most significant use. But to pretend that this is still a primary purpose is a bit like an eccentric relative referring to their car as "the family ambulance" because a couple of times they actually used it to rush someone to a hospital. With the clear exception of those who suffer from infertility, and who may very well spend years trying to conceive a child, for the vast majority of people in urbanized, postindustrial nations (and increasing numbers in other nations as well), reproduction not only isn't the desired result of an encounter, it's something to be deliberately avoided using whatever means are available to them.

The popularity of contraception is actually just one of the many proofs that humans are programmed for sex as pleasure, rather than reproduction. Among other things which tend to reinforce the obvious are that we have a LOT of erogenous zones, and a stunning variety of sexual activities which can produce the most exquisite of pleasures, only one of which has a chance of producing a pregnancy. (If sex was only about uniting sperm and egg, there would be far less potential for distraction from the job at hand, and I can't believe Mother Nature is so inattentive to her work or inefficient that she'd "naturally select" so many delightfully nonreproductive choices for us if they weren't what we were meant to spend the vast majority of our time enjoying.)

Let's also not overlook the legendary persistence and consistency of the human sex drive. It begins well before we're mature enough for parenting, and often rolls over middle age like a minor speedbump, hardly even slowing down, a trend which should not only continue, but increase in the new century thanks to better nutrition and physical fitness, as well as society recognizing the value of mature beauty, and of assertiveness by women in all areas of life. Unlike many species, human interest in sex is not limited to times of peak fertility, with frenzies of activity followed by relative disinterest, as dictated by unthinking genetic mandates. We may not be totally logical or consistent in our behavior, but at least what makes us frenzied or apathetic is a complex interaction of factors, rather than a simple release of hormones intended to insure maximum fertility.

The redefining of sex from a reproductive act to one of pleasure and bonding is a major victory that should be celebrated as such. Perhaps it's a bit early for Hallmark to put out a "Happy Sex-As-Pleasure-Day" card, but until that time comes, we should celebrate it nevertheless, because this shift represents the end of a very long and difficult struggle by humanity in general, and women in particular, and it shouldn't be discounted. Partly that's out of a sense of history, partly as a tribute to those who fought to bring it about, and partly to help change some of the more counterproductive ideas endorsed as official government policies by those who still cling to the Flintstonian belief that the only legitimate justification for sex is for married, heterosexual couples to produce children.

To say that the struggle to shift sex from procreational to recreational is a long one is the ultimate understatement. The process began in the days of our earliest ancestors, when sex for reproduction was a top-priority duty. We lived like all other primates, in small bands, always just one very small step ahead of

extinction due to underpopulation. The seemingly simple goal of adults replacing themselves with offspring proved so elusive that all hominid species except one failed the test. But year after year, women somehow managed to give birth to, and bring to reproductive age, enough children to stay just far enough ahead of famine, drought, disease and predators that the birth rate stayed ever-so-slightly ahead of an unmercifully horrendous death rate. One rough estimate is that 5 children per woman were needed for "replacement fertility," as opposed to 2.1 today. With prehistoric life expectancy so very short, this amounted to a lot of childbearing compressed into a relatively small number of years. (Of course, human nature is universal. No matter how far back we go in time, or how far away from our own society we travel today, sexual feelings and drives are very powerful in most people, and are quite separate from a desire to become a parent nine months down the road. What varies greatly is the degree of freedom people have to make their own choices about reproduction, and to openly express their sexuality.)

Even after we began settling down in larger agricultural communities, pronatalist ("pro-birth") policies and philosophies were still universal, and quite understandable. If there weren't enough hands in the fields tending those first crucial crops, starvation was never far away, and if your city-state had fewer sword-wielding warriors than your neighbors, you could expect a "visit" from some predatory guests quite soon.

So it's no surprise that since most of today's major religions date from these ancient times, the "sex-for-reproduction" attitudes that flourished then would be incorporated into their core values. Add to that the determination of patriarchal religious authorities to establish a male monopoly on power by keeping women "barefoot and pregnant" as much as possible, and it's not hard to see why the idea of reproduction being the only legitimate purpose of sex became firmly embedded in most traditional religions.

But while theologians like to think in terms of "eternal values" which transcend time and place, pronatalism clearly isn't one of those principles. The state of early and quite frequent pregnancy which was adaptive for tiny bands of primates and small agricultural communities, both of which were continually fighting extremely high childhood mortality and short life spans, is counterproductive in those fortunate parts of the world where science has pushed infant mortality down to historic lows, life expectancies are at record highs, and success in life depends upon pursuing an education well into one's early adulthood, then choosing both the timing and number of children to be born. To stubbornly insist that behaviors and attitudes remain consistent in a radically changed situation is suicidal : Wearing a heavy coat while walking down Chicago's Michigan Avenue on New Year's Day will save your life, but wearing that same coat while strolling down Central Avenue in Phoenix, Arizona, on the Fourth of July could be lethal. And pretending that "the" purpose of sex is reproduction long after it ceased to be even "a" purpose, and became a rare "use" can have equally negative consequences.

Perhaps the most obvious examples of the harm prehistoric attitudes toward sex can do are illustrated by looking at one of the oldest and one of the newest sexual issues. The idea that any person - much less any major religion which purports to care about humanity - could have anything but highly positive attitudes toward masturbation is the insanity of erotophobia exemplified. Certainly, there are many sexual activities which can, and should be, condemned for objective reasons : Cheating, any kind of coercion, molestation, irresponsibility in regard to protection against disease or unintended pregnancy, etc. But since this outlet poses absolutely none of the risks, and causes none of the obvious damage those other activities can, it should have always been seen as the most natural and harmless mode of sexual expression, as most Americans see it today. Fortunately, by September 29, 1964, when I first mastered the art, the old ideas were already in retreat, and I'm delighted to have been born in a century which allowed me to happily, freely (though not continually for 42 years ...) enjoy this mode of satisfaction. Had I lived a few generations earlier, I might have found myself in the position of someone starving in a house full of food because they think someone else has to cook it for them. Of course, the biggest irony of the anti-autoeroticism taboo was the fact that its principal virtue was considered a vice : it DIDN'T run the slightest risk of a pregnancy. It was one of the world's only safe,

free, non-fattening delights, and so the fact that its only object was pleasure made it a natural target of many a vehement sermon over the centuries, especially as it was a clear challenge to the "sex = reproduction" dogma. Now, if you're thinking to yourself at this point that gay and lesbian sex is at least as much of a challenge to that same belief, and that it may be more than coincidence that fiery sermons against that are still staples of Fundamentalism today, your suspicions are well founded. (Of course, this form of bigotry is far more vicious and tenacious, since it also appeals to humanity's most basic and primitive programming : "You're not like me, so you are to be feared, hated, or both.") But the damage doesn't end there. Let's not forget the long years of struggle for birth control and abortion rights, and the skirmishes still going on in regard to the reproductive rights of teenagers. This struggle brings us to the most recent example of how the "sex only in marriage, and even then primarily for reproduction" philosophy can be harmful. It has to do with the needless controversy over Gardasil(GARDASIL is the only vaccine that may help guard against diseases that are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) Types 6, 11, 16, and 18). Had a vaccine been invented that was 100% effective in preventing ANY other form of cancer, it would have been universally hailed by all, regardless of political or religious orientation, and once proven safe, been given to everyone at the earliest possible age. But the first, knee-jerk reaction to this vaccine against cervical cancer on the part of the "traditionalists" was "Uh-oh. One less reason for teens to fear sex and remain celibate." In other words, the Human Papilloma Virus, which is sexually transmitted, and can cause a lethal disease, isn't TOTALLY bad, since it can also serve as an ally in their war on sex, and losing even one "chastity enforcer" is just too much of a risk. So, instead of the vaccine being given universally in early childhood, long before any exposure to HPV, and potentially making cervical cancer as extinct as smallpox, there appears to be a fight brewing over who gets it and at what age. In place of a nationwide celebration over the conquering of a form of cancer, and the liberation of sex from one of its risks, we now have yet another battle to fight, and by no means the last. Since knowledge of the link between HPV and cervical cancer is very low among teens, and therefore not much of a deterrent to begin with, it's all too obvious what will happen when something far more significant occurs. It really doesn't take a Nostradamus to read the headline a decade or two in the future : "AIDS VACCINE SAFE AND EFFECTIVE ; CONSERVATIVES DEMAND AGE RESTRICTIONS ON ACCESS."

But even though the fight continues, and will do so for some time, the "tipping point" in regard to the purpose of sex has long ago been reached, and unless we totally abandon the field of battle to the erotophobes of the Radical Right, we will never begin to slip back, one small step at a time, to the dark days of sexual repression they long to re-impose.

Am I deluded (or elitist) enough to think we've reached the sort of worldwide sexual utopia that feminists and other progressives have been striving for all these years, with no one associating sex with anything but pleasure (or, on occasion) a planned pregnancy ? Hardly. Sexual slavery, arranged marriages, female genital mutilation, "honor killings," rape by spouse, acquaintance, stranger, or as a weapon of war, incest, pedophilia, and a staggering variety of sexually transmitted diseases are (or should be) nagging, daily reminders of unfinished business for every one of us. And we'll fight the two-front battle to defend the sexual rights of both the most and least privileged because until those basic sexual rights are considered universally unassailable, no one and no right is safe and secure.

We won't throw away our hard-won right to enjoy sex as pleasure and bonding because we remember those who brought us that right - from the women who courageously triumphed over the risks of childbirth and the agonies of childhood mortality to enable our species to survive, to those who fought the long, and still continuing battle for sex education and full reproductive rights - both in the West, and in societies still under the thumb of patriarchal theocrats where gaining even the most basic of rights for women will be a giant leap forward when inevitably achieved.

But if we abandon our "traditional values," one of which is that reproduction is the purpose of sex, won't we have the kind of "sexual anarchy" that the Radical Rightists fear ? Absolutely not ! The same Rules of Equality that apply to ALL human activities will still apply to this one : Treat others with the same dignity and consideration that you would want for yourself and those you care about most, and take full responsibility for all your actions. Yes, this actually requires using the brain, and thinking for oneself, to figure out what that would mean in each of the numerous moral dilemmas we're faced with each day. But the fact that we have a brain as powerful as our sex drive means that though we may not always make the right choices, it's still a pretty evenly matched fight most of the time, and the more we exercise that brain by thinking and choosing, the more powerful, and better able to make the right choices, it becomes.

There seems to be a general rule in nature that the smaller the brain, the more sex has to do with reproduction. As humans, our ability to totally separate the two, except on rare and deliberately chosen occasions, should be a point of pride, not a "problem" to be "solved" by repression, or a "moral defect" seen

as a "curse." For many species, sex and reproduction are simple, identical, automatic, unthinking behaviors. We're not one of them. We never were. We never will be. We shouldn't want to be. Admittedly, those other species are never burdened with the responsibility to think about protection from S.T.D.'s or unplanned pregnancies. Nor do they have any antisexual indoctrination from childhood to overcome, or regrets over opportunities missed and bad choices made. But neither do they ever feel any pride in making a good choice, or navigating their way through a forest of competing moral philosophies in order to make that right choice. It's never been easy being human, and dealing with sexuality is one of our most difficult challenges. But it has made our lives a lot more fun and rewarding. If it's going to continue to do so, we need to make sure that sex is seen as exactly what it is - a uniquely pleasurable way to bond with a partner, or a purely pleasurable experience needing no apologies, or reproductive justifications, to be worthy of praise, as its own innate rewards are quite sufficient to place it in the top echelon of human rights that need to be explicitly proclaimed, defended, and most of all, enthusiastically enjoyed !

AFeminist@aol.com Nov 15, 2006

Now You can get all the girl on girl porn star action you have dreamt about ...

Video Secrets VIP membership - broadcasts exclusive and uncensored 3-hour events with the biggest names in adult entertainment. When the show is finished they add it to their archives where you can watch or download it anytime you want!!!!