I don’t mean to sound anti-science (no more than usual, I mean), but man oh man, I do find this stuff spooky. And isn’t it amazing to be surrounded by advice on how to have great amazing (yet sterile) sex every day of the month and by stories extolling the virtues of creating eggs and sperm in some lab in part to help understand infertility, all at the same time?
At the risk of sounding overly simplistic (more than usual, I mean), wouldn’t it be easier if we pretty much kept sex for procreative reasons and left it at that?
Oh, I know. We can’t do that. It’s not nearly as sophisticated as turning the inability to control basic hormonal urges into a science.
by 
Easier is debateable. But it’d certinly be a lot less fun! :>
Besides, humans want to have sex. It’s in their nature. And they will do it, one way or another. Might as well let them do it without risk of intented procreation.
@Suricou
“Easier is debateable [sic]. But it’d certinly [sic] be a lot less fun!”
Huh??? Brigitte said it would “be easier if we pretty much kept sex (versus complicated science) for procreative reasons”. As a scientist I can corroborate that she is correct. It is far easier to use sex to bring about procreation than trying to produce babies in a test tube.
And if you think the scientific way is more fun, then might I suggest you are doing it wrong.
My spelling really is bad… sorry about that.
Our interpretations differ. I assumed Brigitte’s mention of keeping sex for procreative reasons was in opposition to the comparatively recent idea of sex for entirely recreative reasons, with procreation inhibited.