Originally Posted by kerry edwards

I know this will sound bizzare--but yes. In Aristotle's sense. I think the fact that we did not have to worry about conception, reduced a kind of subconscious stress, and sex became less inhibited and more experimental. So in Aristotle's sense of of 'moral', which is to live the fullest and most excellent human existence, yes, I think non-reproductive sex is more moral.

I can't remember the article or author anymore, but years ago I read an essay by a sexual conservative arguing that laws prohibiting homosexuality were good because gay sex was better (for a number of reasons, including the fact that males know how to pleasure other males better than females, and that it was more self-indulgent) resulting in the fact that if men ever had gay sex, they'd be less likely to go back to straight sex.
I guess, despite the fact that I disagree with the policy towards gays, I now think there is something to that argument and it applies to some degree to straight sex that is reliably non-reproductive.

If it's true it seems that it is likely that 200 years from now, children will be given a permanent contraception in their youth, but will be able to use their own sperm and eggs to conceive in a lab non-sexually.