Sex In The Public Square - Archives of Sexual Behavior - Comments

food and sex and reasons

Elizabeth — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:02:27 -0700

Tom, I initally had a similar reaction about the word "reason." I'd have found it more satisfying if the study had explored the things that triggered people's desire and the conditions in which they found they could act sexually on their desires. But the more I thought about it the more comfortable I got. For one thing, as you point out people do have sex even when they don't want to or when they think they shouldn't even though they do want to.

But also, remember that the study was based self-reporting, and people do often think of what they do in terms of the reasons behind their actions. I think your analogy doesn't quite work. If you put a plate of food in front of me, I might not eat even if I'm hungry because I might not like the food. My reason? I know I can get food I like without too much trouble. (This is based on a certain amount of privilege, to be sure!)

On the other hand, even if I'm not hungry, putting food in front of me that smells fantastic or that I get pleasure from eating might be reason enough for me to eat despite my lack of hunger. I've certainly eaten enough chocolate when not really hungry to bear that out, I think. I think the study is problematic for lots of reasons (there's that word again!) and the word "reason" is only one of them. (We often don't know all the reasons that we do what we do.) But given the fact that the study was entirely based on self-reporting, I think the word "reason" is the least of the problems.

why people have sex

tom_paine — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0700

I find the whole discussion either hopelessly arcane or else blindingly obvious. Being attracted to someone isn't a reason for having sex, any more than saying "the food smelled good" is a "reason" for eating. Human sexual arousal is as much an animalisitc response to inner and outer conditions as it is a mental decision. If you and I are talking and you begin flirting with me, that isn't about a "reason" for having sex.

If there are "reasons," it's precisely those times when we're either not aroused or accutely aware that we should not have sex. A woman who gives in to her boyfriend because she's afraid he's going to leave her, or a married man who allows a seductive woman to persuade him to have sex are thinking about their motivation. If you and I are unencumbered by outside forces, then our having sex is simply the natural progression of attraction and not a reason at all.

Now if only we knew about "people"...

Elizabeth — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:40:02 -0700

I've read the NYT piece and downloaded the study and I have to say that I think claiming you've outlined the reasons "Why humans have sex" (the title of the article) by studying a group of people that is overwhelmingly between 18-22, and enrolled in college, is a bit of a stretch. I've got more to say about this, but probably tomorrow.

What was that blinding flash?

RC — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:40:47 -0700

From the University's press release: Researcher David Buss said: "Surprisingly, many scientists assume the answer is obvious, but people have different reasons for having sex, some of which are rather complex."