What would the world look like today if human beings didn't find sex pleasurable...

What would the world look like today if human beings didn't find sex pleasurable, but treated it simply as a means of procreation, like most other animals?

Animals consider sex pleasurable, the orgasm you feel as you bust a nut is probably the oldest mechanism of your reptilian brain.

It would look Christian.

>tfw she left porn
my dick is unpleased

This, dogs aren't thinking "holy shit i need to procreate" they're thinking "dam this bitch smells good as fuck im gonna stick my dick in her" which is essentially the same motivation we have.

Animals have no concept of procreation, dummy. They also do it because it feels good

Probably a lot more productive, like after ive had a wank

They just last 5 seconds

How the hell can you not understand the simple fact that in order for a male animal to ejaculate and for the cervix of the female animal to receive sperm, intercourse must be pleasureable. Its absolutely fundamental to procreation. Please think before making threads.

>but treated it simply as a means of procreation, like most other animals

lol idiot

so do you

touche

you better give me a fucking name

Read the Song of Songs. True Christianity (not protestantism) has no qualms about romantic love or light eroticism.

You got a code for that one?

There is no reptilian brain senpai. This is pseudoscience.

I think the real trip here is that if we didn't find it pleasurable we wouldn't do it. It's like a butterfly effect, if you untangle sexual pleasure from human history you're just stroking your mental dick.

This is like Veeky Forums fanfiction.

Does raise the question: what is pleasure?

>absolutely fundamental
meh.
I don't doubt that all mammals have orgasms, but procreation happens in a lot of species that probably do not.

sauce??? i need to fap

>Autists can't address the question itself and instead reject it's premise

Guess the humanities are just a bit too complicated for some

Sauce???

Chances are animals find sex "pleasurable" in that the reward centers of their brain encourage them to do it, which is the same function that find sex pleasurable serves in humans.

If we truly didn't find sex pleasurable, we wouldn't reproduce.

The premise is inconsistent.

>Does raise the question: what is pleasure?

Spinoza defined it in similar terms to happiness. He considered happiness anything that expanded your capability to act, whereas pleasure was that except focused only on smaller parts of your body.

After some legwork I found it
SNIS-563
Takachiho Suzu

I realize that you're just a pol9k fuckwad who's baiting for a reason to whine about "muh degeneracy", and "muh hedonism" and about that girl you like who won't date you, but I'll humor you anyway.

Everything a person consciously decides to do is motivated by one of two desires: the desire to continue living or the desire to trigger the pleasure center of the brain and get a hit of that sweet, sweet dopamine, seratonin etc. We do things that aren't pleasurable, like hard manual labor, or fighting, because we associate those actions with survival; hard work leads to money which can be used for food and resources, etc. We do things that aren't necessary for survival but trigger our pleasure center, such as sex and playing games. We tend to avoid doing things that are neither necessary for survival nor pleasurable. Sex is already inherently unnecessary for survival, so if it was not pleasurable then there would be no biological impetus to do it.

TL;DR: No. If sex was not pleasurable it would not lead to the girl you like ignoring Chad and saving her virginity for your boring, personalityless ass. Lose some weight and gain some hobbies, faggot.

...

Even ringworms have serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine receptors. Animals feel very similar about sex as we do

*roundworms

Way to make some extreme baseless assumptions. This is a nice board.

Fuck off back to whichever containment board you came from.

Because the question is nonsense.

It's like asking 'why does a car need wheels in order to move?' or 'why can't 1+1=3 instead of 2?' or 'why does a pig have eyes?' It's complete waste of time to even think about the question because the answer is so obvious and fundamental to the concept.

What's more, how the hell can anyone answer 'what the world would look like today'. Wtf does that even mean? It's so damn broad, it could mean anything.

Finally, this is a history/humanities board and the only legitimate way this question could be posed, would be in a biological evolutionary context. But even Veeky Forums would tell you to fuck off because its ultimately a stupid question.

Be nice. No need for hostilities.

>evolutionarily older, less developed parts of your brain don't exist
Did you fall for the literalism meme?

>nonsense
>the kinds of questions around which the humanities are founded
You're an idiot.

Damn that shit sexy.