|Regarding living without sex, I would hedge that a bit and say that I would find life most disagreeable if I had to live without good sex. In the sensual sense, and the moral. SOLO has been confused with hyper-banging hippies once already, you know. : P |
But you're right. The point is, sex is a big part of being a human. Because we have rationality-capable brains, humans have extended the act of reproduction into the arena of simple pleasure. Not for the species' sake, but for our own individual enjoyment (including the cases in which the couple is actually attempting to conceive; which is quite often, I imagine). Denying what might give you enjoyment, without considering the consequences of that denial on your overall well-being, is not Mr. Spock. Analyze the decisions you might make so that they are in your true interest, but don't allow the fact that square pegs don't naturally fit into circular holes (so to speak) ruin your chances at physical and emotional contentment.
Humans are meant to change nature while acknowledging its laws; individuals that have found themselves at odds with the normal physiological understanding of human sexuality are not saying B is A. They are saying "my A is mine, I can do what I want with it, I'm not forcing anyone, why torture myself? Would self-torture be Normal?"
If a woman chooses to have her "tubes tied", or a man for that matter, are they contradicting nature? Or are they adjusting the physical world to suit their interests? Does getting breast implants contradict the nature of breasts, if the mammary glands no longer function? Don't breasts have functions other than feeding little crap-factories? (hehe, j/k, kids are cool) "Silly woman. You shouldn't go around contradicting your nature like that, even for your own happiness!"
But anywho...I'm probably way over my head in this one. I know Regi would clean my philosophical clock, even if he is so terribly wrong about so many things. : P