x_Silver_Starlight_x
God damnit, stop taking what I said out of context. I'm not even sure what you're referring to me saying wrong up there. It doesn't disprove what you or I said. YES SEX IS USED FOR OTHER THINGS. Your human sexuality and psych major will tell you that. Any intelligent person will tell you that. But, simply as a student in college who is has taken and is taking biology courses on reproductive biology, sex's
primary function biologically is reproduction. That does not mean it can't end up being used for other purposes. It just means when animals have sex, sperm is generally released and tries to get to the egg because that's what it's meant to do. It's not often successful, but it's still trying to do it.
I am not intentionally taking things out of context. I am interpreting what I type. If I get it wrong, we are both to blame, me for misunderstanding, and you for not being more clear. Humans, we say things, sometimes we say things badly. Now that I understand what you are saying:
While sex, or at least sperm being deposited into the vaginal canal by male ejaculation, is for making babies. That does not mean that it is the top reason for a social-sexual animal (like humans or bonobos) to have sex; or the reason for other types of sex. If that was so, wouldn't baby making sex to sex act ratio's be far higher simply because accidental pregnancy out of sex acts not meant to impregnate? Even in the bonobo population, that lacks condoms, and hormonal birth control, 75% of sex acts don't end in babies. Which means biologically speaking, bonobos are having a s**t ton of same-sex sex or non vaginal/penile sex. (sex that cannot produce babies)
Or to rephrase, it might have started out in human biology and sexuality that sex was strictly for making babies (to propagate the human population), and the only widely preformed sex act was penile/vaginal intercourse to the point of male ejaculation, but that is not so now. The sexual-social nature of humans was formed, (presumably when our frontal lobes developed to what we see today in humans, encouraging social behaviors and consciousness) and other sex acts were "created" (oral, a**l, same-sex sex), the biological cause and effect of penile/vaginal sex = baby, was rendered less important to the survival of species, than social interaction that sex act (other than vaginal/penile) = socially beneficial outcome and survival of species by making the social group less likely to kill one another. That could also be why same-sex sexual behavior happens less in non social animals.
That is my mind babble of why I think sex does not equal baby making.
x_Silver_Starlight_x
Sure, I can explain further. The person I marry and have sex with is someone I want a family with. But, to be honest, I mostly want to adopt because I'm not to fond of the idea of birth. I also don't want to just pop out children. That may be what I'm here for biologically, but it's not what I'm going to do. I recognize that sex is fun, and want to have it for fun. You make it sound like wanting to have a family with someone means wanting to have a super large family and just keep getting pregnant like 19 kids and counting.
Okay, and I totally get that. I am Childfree, I never have sex to "have babies". I am saying "wanting to indiscriminately pop out babies" does not jive with the social aspect of human nature.