|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5298 days) Posts: 21 From: Save Warp Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nipples | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
they dont have anything to do with sex do they?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
rueh writes: What does nipples on a male have to do with sex? male nipples become erect during orgasm and in the lead up to it their sensitivity enables arousal so i would say that they are related to sexual activity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
rueh writes: But wether or not your nipples become erect during sex, doesn't hinder copulation so that is iffy and the point about stimulation could hold true for any part of the body. Rubbing someones feet could arouse them. Does that mean that feet are related to sex? Yes, Even toes can get pleasure during sex...human sex makes no sense really there seems to be more pleasure involved then is necessary for procreation to take place. Now that is well designed!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Phage0070 writes: Except that there are numerous limits placed on sex through religion; no sex with two unmarried people, no sex with someone else's married partner, no sex with anyone else than your marriage partner, no sex with the same sex, so sex with any other orifice, etc. Making sex so pleasurable as it is is unnecessary and even detrimental to the behavior required through religion. That is poor design, or at least unhelpful design. It actually makes sense through evolution where we want the maximum amount of sex that we can possibly attain im not sure i agree with you on that. sex outside of the bounds set by religion causes huge problems for society. Families do not prosper if both parents are not unified, single parent families rarely prosper at all, kids go hungry, there is less education because the single parent cannot afford it, these families are more prone to abuse . sex with muliple partners creates problems with STD's and unwanted pregnancies most often leading to abortion which in turn can cause reproductive issues later on. Some STD's can cause cancer such as the Herpe's virus which can lead to cervical cancer in females. sex in any orifice such as anal sex is unhygienic because excrement contains some very nasty bacteria... same goes with sex with animals. Pleasurable sex is not detrimental to religion. Its simple, if you dont want to follow religious laws, you dont have to. Pleasurable sex is more likely to be a divine gift then an error in design.And on evolution terms, all the problems associated with erratic sexual behavior is detrimental to society rather then beneficial. Phage0070 writes: How about another process of life, such as death? Death is inevitable and according to your views is not the end of the road,but it often seems needlessly painful to fulfill its required function. Did God just decide to get one last torture session in before you get pampered in heaven? that is not my view of death. I DO view death as the end of the road and i do NOT believe the bible teach's immortality of the soul. Rather it teaches that " the wages sin pays is death " as opposed to "the gift God gives is everlasting life" so death and life are opposites according to the bible, death is not moving onto another aspect of life...if that were the case, why would God and Jesus be talking about correcting our situation and giving us eternal 'life'? Death was never part of the design or master plan...it was a result of Adam's rebelling and choosing independance from God. Since that happened we have been like fans unplugged from our source of power.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Phage0070 writes: The fact is that the organism most fit to reproduce will proliferate directly results in our inherent desire to bonk anything that moves. if all mankind behaved in such a way, then you might have a point, but the fact is that many people are very restrained in their sexual activity and its not religion that dictates this. many people establish life long partnerships and not everyone is willing to bonk anything that moves.
Phage0070 writes: This is ridiculous, so I shall. STDs come with the territory, and with suitable screening they are a small price to pay for access to a wide array of booty. From an evolutionary perspective there *are* no unwanted pregnancies otherwise you would not have hit it in the first place. Besides, you are again assuming that there is some hidden designer that is sitting in our testicles and adjusting the next generation to fit with societal norms. Aborted pregnancies have no affect on evolutionary progression, the sperm don't pull their punches because the previous batch didn't make it. thats just putrid
Phage0070 writes: So you are either:A) Asserting that through your belief you will not die. (Boy are you in for a surprise!) B) Asserting that nobody in the history of the world ever got a payoff from your religion. (Chances don't look good for you, eh?) or C) Quibbling pointlessly over intentionally twisted semantics. I am actually leaning toward option B from your post, which is certainly an interesting take on the situation. Not only is your deity fallible but also apparently wholly incapable of rectifying the situation its incompetence caused, and you are depending on the unlikely prospect that it will get its act together during your lifetime as opposed to the thousands of years predating it. God and Jesus are also frikkin' liars since everyone they ever met or preached to ultimately died; the deity and its son never even managed to save one person! Thief on the cross: You are forgiven... but you die anyways! i am neither A, B or C. I acknowledge that things will happen in Gods own time and if thats after im dead then so be it...it makes no difference because i'm as good as dead anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Phage0070 writes: It is a learned behavior just like restraining yourself from straying from a monogamous relationship. right, and it didnt take religion to steer people in this direction. I know many people who are not religious in the slightest, yet they have been with the one partner for most of their lives. So, lets say evolution is the answer, then for some reason evolution has pushed humans toward monogamy and it very likely is because its more beneficial then the opposite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Phage0070 writes: An excellent point. Evolution can even lead to contradictory situations, such as leading to pair bonding but also a persistent biological urge to mate outside the pair. In evolution this is normal, but if we were to assume design it would make little sense. to the contrary, i think design makes perfect sense for the reason that we are not predetermined to behave a certain way all animals have their own list of predictable behaviors, but humans do not we have the ability to choose how we want to behave...that is a huge difference
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
it makes sense because animals live by instinct but humans live by law
whats the difference between the two? animals are subject to instict but humans are submissive to law If evolution was the answer, then humans would be subject to instinct like every other animal on the planet... but we are not. We choose to live by laws and therein lies evidence of design rather then randomness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
DevilsAdvocate writes: In a nutshell instinctive behavior inhances the chance of survival for that organism and in the long run survival for the entire species.] I agree. And we see it in the animal kingdom plenty. But in humans we dont see it as often. Yes we have an instinct to eat, But some people will choose not to eat when hungry...anorexics are one example...people on hunger strikes are another. This shows that humans are not BOUND by instinct in the way other animals are. The instinct to care for offspring is very strong amongst all animals...except for humans who readily will kill their offspring ie abortion. Or they will neglect them and not care for them properly. That certainly is not beneficial to the human race. Even when it comes to Fight or flight we present a non instinctual behavior. Animals will hear a noise and run, but humans are more inclined to get closer & investigate. When a volcano erupts for example we see the smoke rising and want a front row seat...many people have died because they did not flee in time. Unlike animals who sense the danger and take to flight at the first signs of activity.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024