Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

C&H sex discussion thread

1…2627293132…38

Comments

  • #842
    Grindylow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,919 ✭✭✭Grindylow


    almostnever wrote: »
    I dunno if I'm entirely comfortable with basing the definition of sex on that, though. If two infertile people have sexual intercourse and it is impossible for them to procreate, is that then not sex as a result? :/

    Tell me if I'm completely misinterpreting that, btw. 2 am, and all that. :p

    Nah it's still *possible* for two infertile people to recreate, although it may not happen.

    It's not possible for two fertile women to recreate.


  • #843
    almostnever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,768 ✭✭✭almostnever


    Noel2k9 wrote: »
    Nah it's still *possible* for two infertile people to recreate, although it may not happen.

    It's not possible for two fertile women to recreate.

    If the woman has had a radical hysterectomy (womb, ovaries, fallopian tubes), it isn't possible.


  • #844
    Grindylow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,919 ✭✭✭Grindylow


    almostnever wrote: »
    If the woman has had a radical hysterectomy (womb, ovaries, fallopian tubes), it isn't possible.

    I think you misinterpreted what I said. :o

    It's possible for any male/female combination to reproduce, in general. Whereas it's impossible for any female/female combination to reproduce a fertile offspring in any situation.

    Just to clarify, by possible I mean it has happened, it will happen, and it is happening.


  • #845
    KnifeWRENCH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    almostnever wrote: »
    Where does that leave sex between two women, though?

    See, there was no such thing in my day! :pac:

    But yeah, that's a fair point. Eh......I dunno really. Sex between two women wouldn't exactly be my specialist subject on Mastermind. :P


  • #846
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 31,169 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    Recreation involves board-games, sports and parks.
    Procreation doesn't always involve those things... >_>


  • Advertisement
  • #847
    Grindylow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,919 ✭✭✭Grindylow


    Insect Overlord wrote: »
    Recreation involves board-games, sports and parks.
    Procreation doesn't always involve those things... >_>

    Reproduction involves the fusion of both parents gametes, ie: the recreation of the parents.. :)


  • #848
    KnifeWRENCH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    Insect Overlord wrote: »
    Recreation involves board-games, sports and parks.
    Procreation doesn't always involve those things... >_>

    But it's much more fun when it does. :cool: Neglecting to use a condom adds a whole new element to a game of Risk.


  • #849
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 31,169 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    How many posters here have access to the S&S forum?


  • #850
    randylonghorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,509 ✭✭✭✭randylonghorn


    Noel2k9 wrote: »
    It's impossible for two women to recreate through tribadism so realistically calling it 'sex' doesn't make sense.
    Oh, it's very possible for them to recreate, believe me!!

    I could link you to some sites if you like ... :p


  • #851
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    almostnever wrote: »
    Plus I don't think that sex is entirely about biology, either.

    Well the word does have a certain meaning in that context.
    Essentially you're asking whether the definition of the word as we use it in common speech matches the one biologists use when they talk about reproduction.

    You're not really going to get a conclusive answer, because there isn't one, it depends entirely on the context in which it is said and the opinions of the person speaking at the moment.
    This be the problem with non-formal languages.


  • Advertisement
  • #852
    KnifeWRENCH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    Insect Overlord wrote: »
    How many posters here have access to the S&S forum?

    I used to. :(

    But now I'm modless AND sexless on here. YAY! \o/


  • #853
    randylonghorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,509 ✭✭✭✭randylonghorn


    Insect Overlord wrote: »
    How many posters here have access to the S&S forum?
    I do.

    :p @ Knifey


  • #854
    Banjo Fella
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 695 ✭✭✭Banjo Fella


    Noel2k9 wrote: »
    It's not possible for two fertile women to recreate.

    Challenge accepted, anyone? :p

    Actually, it is kind of sort of technically possible. Not directly, but - if I'm remembering what I read in NewScientist correctly - it could be if you were to engineer some male gametes from one of the women's stem cells. Provided people don't get too huffy about the "sanctity of motherhood being defiled noes" or somesuch, it should eventually be possible. T'would be really cool!


  • #855
    Craguls
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,986 ✭✭✭Craguls


    Also re: the whole same sex in vitro reproduction it's something that could in theory be done within the next ten years.

    Recently it's been possible to reverse engineer chromosomes from two male XY mice to produce crossovers of XO, XX(introduced from XO manipulations) and XY mice; which have been able to recombinate meitoically to allow for genetic crossover, thus inheritance between both fathers. Sexual reversal and sexual behaviors (and by extent determination) is actually less complex than you would probably believe in some organisms and is still an active area of research.

    If you'd like to read more look up about the following genes in Drosophilia; Sxl, Dne, Fru.


  • #856
    illiop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 682 ✭✭✭illiop


    I used to think sex was just intercourse. But then I started thinking about it. There's lesbian sex, and even gay men; I mean, yeah it's penetration or whatever but surely "sexual intercourse" as a scientific term requires boy parts and girl parts? But on the other hand if straight people did not have intercourse (dear god, I hate that word) then I certainly wouldn't count it as sex, as such.

    ...But then again it kind of is sex in a way. Agh, I don't know this is a confusing topic. Perhaps the definition of sex (in the anthropological sense) just differs depending on the people who are doing it?


  • #857
    Chuchoter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Chuchoter


    Its only sex if you can reproduce is an absolutely retarded definition of sex and tbh its actually kind of offensive. Obviously, there is sex for reproduction, thats a biological function but thats not really whats being discussed is it? Lesbian sex is a thing. Just because theres no penis involved doesn't mean its not a thing.

    Also, as we're here, tribadism doesn't really exist a huge amount outside of Mr Garrison on South Park, just to let you guys know.;)


  • #858
    Grindylow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,919 ✭✭✭Grindylow


    Sorry, I meant to say that I was stating the biological definition of sex. :)

    Sure you can call any sexual contact sex depending on how you view it, but it mainly all comes back to biology


  • #859
    Chuchoter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Chuchoter


    Why are we discussing a biological definition at all then?


  • #860
    Grindylow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,919 ✭✭✭Grindylow


    Because it's the real definition..

    Sure I can say 'possible' means never going to happen, but it doesn't make it true. I'd look it up in a dictionary for the true meaning.

    Likewise, I can say sex involves holding hands, so I'll look up the definition.


  • #861
    almostnever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,768 ✭✭✭almostnever


    Yeah, but specifying that you're going by the biological definition of sex implies that there are equally valid alternative definitions not entirely based on biology. If sex between two women isn't sex, then that would mean that a gay woman who exclusively slept with other women in her lifetime would always remain a virgin, that just doesn't make sense to me.


  • Advertisement
  • #862
    illiop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 682 ✭✭✭illiop


    Noel2k9 wrote: »
    Because it's the real definition..

    Sure I can say 'possible' means never going to happen, but it doesn't make it true. I'd look it up in a dictionary for the true meaning.

    Likewise, I can say sex involves holding hands, so I'll look up the definition.

    Yeah but that's only what it means in the biological sense. Not necessarily the social or anthropological definition. Just like organic means something different in agriculture than biology or chemistry, neither of them are "wrong".

    Besides language adapts to the world. Our sex-lives have changed drastically in the last 50 years or so, perhaps our language should too.


  • #863
    Davidius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,893 ✭✭✭Davidius


    What one classifies as sex in an informal context is entirely arbitrary. If you want to come up with a proper, formal yet non-biological definition then you're going to have to have to go to the finer level and see what basic points you agree upon in order to create something sufficient.

    You could go with some general definition such as any activity between two (or more) people that involves the stimulation of the penis, vagina, breasts or anus for the purposes of pleasure. Of course then you'll have people complaining about it being not general enough, too general or that it simply doesn't fit.

    It doesn't really matter that much, you'd want to be needlessly picky to say that a woman who's only ever had sexual contact with a woman is a virgin. I wouldn't worry too much about any paradox that might arise from using a flimsy definition in a colloquial context because it's not all that important.


  • #864
    Craguls
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,986 ✭✭✭Craguls


    Noel2k9 wrote: »
    Because it's the real definition..

    The "biological definition" you quoted is the definition of gametic sex. Which would describe sex for reproductive purposes. Sexual intercourse, however would fit the definition that most people are looking for;
    wiki definition wrote:
    Sexual intercourse, also known as copulation or coitus, commonly refers to the act in which the male reproductive organ enters the female reproductive tract.[1][2] The two entities may be of opposite sexes, or they may be hermaphroditic, as is the case with snails. The definition may additionally include penetrative sexual acts between same-sex pairings, such oral intercourse, anal intercourse, and fingering, which are also commonly practiced by heterosexual couples.[2]


  • #865
    Grindylow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,919 ✭✭✭Grindylow


    Craguls wrote: »
    The "biological definition" you quoted is the definition of gametic sex. Which would describe sex for reproductive purposes. Sexual intercourse, however would fit the definition that most people are looking for;

    But sexual intercourse still won't define female sexual contact. Females can't engage in "copulation"...

    Ah edit, I just saw the bit on the end there..


  • #866
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 31,169 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    Noel2k9 wrote: »
    But sexual intercourse still won't define female sexual contact. Females can't engage in "copulation"...

    Did you stop reading the definition after the first sentence? :confused:


  • #867
    Jamie Starr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭Jamie Starr


    I don't know about anyone else, but I can make women pregnant just by looking at them.


  • #868
    Grindylow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,919 ✭✭✭Grindylow


    Insect Overlord wrote: »
    Did you stop reading the definition after the first sentence? :confused:

    Yeah I forgot to but then I wrote in the edit as soon as I did. My bad. :o


  • #869
    Banjo Fella
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 695 ✭✭✭Banjo Fella


    It's just semantics, anyway. The female-female type thingy is undoubtedly expressing the same thing between those two people, regardless of what definition you use to encapsulate it.


  • #870
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 31,169 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    Agnostic Mantis wrote: »
    I don't know about anyone else, but I can make women pregnant just by looking at them.

    "My rhymes are so potent that in this small segment
    I made all of the ladies in the area pregnant!" :cool:


  • Advertisement
  • #871
    SarahBeep!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,965 ✭✭✭SarahBeep!


    Noel2k9 wrote: »
    Because it's the real definition..


    The meaning of words changes though. What did the word gay mean 80 years ago? What does it mean now?


Advertisement