FINALLY someone proposes an equitable solution to the gay marriage controversy.
Eh, no.
Listed in decreasing rank of likelihood of causing a person to be abusive and murderous are:
- Alcohol
- Drugs
- Sociopathy
- Emotions
If you get rid of those four, you’ll have dealt away 99% of all crime. Getting rid of sexual desire would be on par with getting rid of lightning as a method for reducing human death and suffering.
It’s a terrible idea. We’re not Vulcans, you know. Sure, they only had sex every seven years, but as a society they worked for that goal. With humans, now, we would go extinct pretty quickly. Now, a relevantSMBC.
Well I wouldn’t be shaving my palms 3 times a day like I am now.
If sex is truly as all-encompassing a motivator for males as I’ve been lead to believe, then I think it would be several generations before they found their footing again. It seems the dominant human motivation would become the female desire for children.
I wonder whether we would then become the aggressors, and even eventually form roving rape bands [insert unknown medical means here] to steal sperm from desirable males. Or would the donation of sperm become a highly paid position akin to the current egg donation programs?
I do think in the end it would be a better world, mainly because I don’t agree that fewer humans would be a bad development.
ETA: Would eating then become the primary motivator for men? I reckon good food is next on the list for most of the guys I know - if not, what would their new motivator be?
Do you need sexual desire to a person to masturbate, though? Or just sexual feeling? Because young children can masturbate and have physical sexual reactions even if they aren’t attracted to a person/people–they can just do it because it feels good. That’s how I was before I hit puberty.
A girl and her dog…
No need to postulate “unknown medical means”; the favored means for producing an erection by female rapists already exists; strangulation. Although that takes multiple women to pin down one man, usually. Not that I think that would work on a large scale; that sort of thing would just ignite a genuine gender war, probably ending in the women being decimated by the men who no longer care for them anymore.
It seems more likely to me that you’d have no humans in the long run. Not just fewer.
You have some weird views on gender relations, Der Trihs. Ever think about writing sci fi? The Handmaid’s Tale is just crying out for a sequel.
I don’t know that no humans is the real worry. Women will continue to ovulate. Men’s sperm can be aspirated or they can “lie back and think of England” if they want to father children more conventionally. Certainly plenty of people - men and women both - want children, not just sex.
So I don’t think we’ll go extinct any time soon. I think we’ll see negative population growth, pretty suddenly and pretty dramatically. And that’s even worse in many ways than going extinct. If we have a sudden drop off of births by 50% or more, who’s going to care for us when we’re old? Who’s going to work and pay into social security or other safety nets? Who’s going to do the heavy lifting jobs? And yet…there are still babies being born, so we have to keep those social safety nets in place. We have to keep running schools and pediatric centers and playgrounds. If we had NO births, we could reallocate those resources. With far fewer births, we can’t.
I was thinking more The World Out of Time actually. A form of immortality is discovered that stops aging just before adolescence. The genders now lacking anything to keep them together, society eventually splits into two mutually hostile societies, the Boys and the Girls. Eventually there’s a war; civilization collapses, the Girls are exterminated, and the Boys reduced to a small nomadic population.
How can a man who has no sexual desires get an erection or ejaculate?
On farms they use “electrical stimulators” to force bulls to ejaculate for artificial insemination. It’s pretty much exactly what you’d think, if what you’re thinking of is shoving a giant electrified dildo into the bull’s ass and turning on the juice.
Well, assuming we can maintain the stockpiles of frozen sperm indefinitely, I can picture artificial insemination helping a little, though birth rates would still plummet,to the point where (for the first time) that rate is actually higher in the developed countries. All third-world nations lacking reproductive-technology infrastructure die out sooner or later.
Does Viagra still work, allowing a man to achieve and maintain an erection despite lack of interest? That could be a major factor.
Same difference. I take lack of sexual desire to be the same as lack of any sexual feeling or erotic response.
Having said that, I don’t see how a guy could jerk off without having something to look at or think about. It doesn’t have to be a “person,” per se. it could just be, like, an ass, but it has to be something.
Men can’t have sex passively that way. No sexual desire = no boner, no ejaculation.
Sure, and a rectal stimulation of the prostate with a finger will do it, too.
Also, men have ejaculated during rape. No sexual desire, just mechanics.
Plus, of course, there are gay men who have fathered children naturally (although I wonder how many of them would be more properly identified as “bisexual” if our culture didn’t make bisexuality so invisible). There are fundamentalist religious misogynists who have fathered men on their wives to do their “husbandly duty.” How do they get erect? I don’t know, I’m a chick. But apparently it can be done. Men who are highly motivated to be fathers would find a way.
ETA: Also, it’s possible for men with ED to ejaculate without an erection. I do know that one first hand, as it were. Of course, the desire is there in that case. But erections are not required for ejaculation, is my point.
Oh, fucking bullshit.
Do guys never just have feelings down there devoid of stimulus? I get that a lot. Especially if I’m ovulating. Just this intense desire to jerk off even if I’m not having sexy thoughts. It’s sort of bizarre when I end up reading or watching TV while doing it because I keep thinking, “It would look like, to an outsider, that I’m jerking off to…say, Holocaust literature or books about molestation” when the reality is that that’s just what I’m doing to occupy myself while fulfilling a bodily need.
What does being a misogynist have to do with sexual desire?