# What if sex wasn't so fun? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 15, 2013, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-sex-wasnt-so-fun/674015 "2013-11-15T21:51:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![turtlescanfly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/65b543/32.png) [@turtlescanfly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/turtlescanfly)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2013, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-sex-wasnt-so-fun/674015/1 "2013-11-15T21:51:24Z")
HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION: What if suddenly every human being on the planet lost the ability to derive pleasure from sex? Assume this means all forms of sexual gratification (hetero-, homo-, masturbation, anal, oral… plus anything else I’m to vanilla to even conceive of). What would be the consequences, good or bad? What would be the short term and long term consequences for the human race? For the sake of argument, assume that sex is not UN-pleasurable, just totally devoid of joy. People would still be able to perform any sex act they want. Also assume that people don’t desire sex either, as desiring it without being able to enjoy it would be a special kind of hell that is beyond the scope of what I’m thinking about. So… no one gets horny and children are only born by an explicit act of will. Is the human race doomed, or will the lack of distraction lead to an unprecedented level of productivity and accomplishment? ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2013, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-sex-wasnt-so-fun/674015/2 "2013-11-15T22:06:56Z")
So… no one gets horny and children are only born by an explicit act of will. Is the human race doomed, or will the lack of distraction lead to an unprecedented level of productivity and accomplishment? [/QUOTE] ``` Well, worker bees, ants, termites etc have no sex drive I believe. But they are driven by a queen with a powerful sex drive. We would all become essentially drones. I imagine much less motivated to succeed and probably would spell the end of mankind in just a few generations. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2013, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-sex-wasnt-so-fun/674015/3 "2013-11-15T22:15:59Z")
Isn’t that pretty much the world depicted in 19th century literature? At least, I sometimes get the impression that the characters in Victorian novels are people just like us but without acknowledged sex drives. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2013, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-sex-wasnt-so-fun/674015/4 "2013-11-15T22:21:33Z")
People would still have a need for emotional intimacy, I think. Lack of horniness doesn’t mean people don’t want to be around others. Relationships would probably be a lot more straightfoward. People wouldn’t use their sexuality to toy with others, and there’d be a lot less awkwardness and butthurt about mixed signals and “needs” not being met. Fewer body hang-ups. But people would probably seek out alternative sensual pleasures. Like eating and drinking. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2013, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-sex-wasnt-so-fun/674015/5 "2013-11-15T22:43:23Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Isn’t that pretty much the world depicted in 19th century literature? You’re reading the wrong 19th-century literature. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2013, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-sex-wasnt-so-fun/674015/6 "2013-11-15T22:50:20Z")
Hostility increases between the genders. Relationships become much less stable; look how sexless marriages tend to fail. Humanity survives, but there’s a population crash. There’s a rise in popularity of the more anti-sex religious sects; “See, we told you it was a sin, and God removed it!” Anti-woman cultures probably outright kill women more often than they do now. ---
**Author:** ![turtlescanfly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/65b543/32.png) [@turtlescanfly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/turtlescanfly)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2013, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-sex-wasnt-so-fun/674015/7 "2013-11-15T23:35:25Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > look how sexless marriages tend to fail. But they fail because sex is such an important part of a relationship to most people (pre-Sex-ocolypse ;)). If it wasn’t so important (and I can’t see how it would continue to be so), wouldn’t that remove the “reason” for the failure? ---
**Author:** ![turtlescanfly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/65b543/32.png) [@turtlescanfly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/turtlescanfly)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2013, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-sex-wasnt-so-fun/674015/8 "2013-11-15T23:41:37Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Anti-woman cultures probably outright kill women more often than they do now. Are you saying that more women would be killed because they will have no use at all? (not necessarily your belief, but the belief of the oppressive culture?) Because I could see it going the other way… without sexual gratification being an issue, I would think there would be a lot less reason for women to be oppressed, greatly reducing or even eliminating the gender equality gap. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2013, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-sex-wasnt-so-fun/674015/9 "2013-11-15T23:53:05Z")
> [@turtlescanfly](#): > > But they fail because sex is such an important part of a relationship to most people (pre-Sex-ocolypse ;)). If it wasn’t so important (and I can’t see how it would continue to be so), wouldn’t that remove the “reason” for the failure? No; it removes a major reason for having the relationship at all. > [@turtlescanfly](#): > > Are you saying that more women would be killed because they will have no use at all? (not necessarily your belief, but the belief of the oppressive culture?) Yes. I mean look at history; ruthless tyrants and conquerors and the like tend towards a pattern of “kill the males, keep the women as sex objects”. With no interest in sex they’ll be more likely to just kill everyone. > [@turtlescanfly](#): > > Because I could see it going the other way… without sexual gratification being an issue, I would think there would be a lot less reason for women to be oppressed, greatly reducing or even eliminating the gender equality gap. I disagree. Sexual interest is a major part of what keeps the genders from outright loathing each other. As the joke goes, “the problem with the War Between the Sexes is fraternization with the enemy.” Well, there won’t be much interest in fraternization anymore. I’m reminded of Niven’s old novel _A World Out of Time_, where a form of immortality that froze people in preadolescence resulted in a polarized world with two civilizations that hated each other, the Boys and the Girls. And eventually a genocidal war that exterminated the Girls and reduced the Boys to wandering bands of hunters. ---
**Author:** ![epbrown01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ba0ec/32.png) [@epbrown01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/epbrown01)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-sex-wasnt-so-fun/674015/10 "2013-11-16T01:31:06Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No; it removes a major reason for having the relationship at all. Doesn’t it remove the incentive to leave? Sexless marriages fail because one of the partners wants sex and leaves to get it. Take that off the table and why leave unless something else is bugging you? Anyway, as someone that’s been down this road, I gotta say that reducing the chances of walking in on your parents during the act is a huge benefit. Really. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-sex-wasnt-so-fun/674015/11 "2013-11-16T02:20:37Z")
> [@epbrown01](#): > > Doesn’t it remove the incentive to leave? Sexless marriages fail because one of the partners wants sex and leaves to get it. Take that off the table and why leave unless something else is bugging you? What makes you think that something else _won’t_ be? Couples irritate each other all the time, and there won’t be any sex to smooth the irritation over. For that matter it seems unlikely people would get married at all. Some kind of “breeding contract” seems more likely; something that doesn’t imply any emotional relationship. If people want a sexless emotional relationship, that’s what friends are for; not spouses. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-sex-wasnt-so-fun/674015/12 "2013-11-16T02:29:43Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > People wouldn’t use their sexuality to toy with others, and there’d be a lot less awkwardness and butthurt Naturally. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-sex-wasnt-so-fun/674015/13 "2013-11-16T03:09:59Z")
A friend of mine used to say, “If sex weren’t fun, you wouldn’t be here.” That pretty much sums it up. ---
**Author:** ![buddy431](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6a8cbe/32.png) [@buddy431](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddy431)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-sex-wasnt-so-fun/674015/14 "2013-11-16T06:43:10Z")
Surely the desire to have children would still be strong. I mean, despite the frequent lamentations from certain segments of the population, not _all_ pregnancies are unplanned. The exact nature of child-rearing relationships is unknown, but I bet that a certain number of people would want to raise a group of children by the same two people in a nuclear unit. In fact, the stereotype anyway is that children of unplanned pregnancies are more likely to be raised in single-parent households than planned pregnancies. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-sex-wasnt-so-fun/674015/15 "2013-11-16T08:55:21Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > You’re reading the wrong 19th-century literature. Look up “A Man and a Maid.” Our dorm floor had readings when I was in college. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-sex-wasnt-so-fun/674015/16 "2013-11-16T09:15:20Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > A friend of mine used to say, “If sex weren’t fun, you wouldn’t be here.” That pretty much sums it up. Right–the whole species would die out. This is a no-brainer OP. Sex is such a preposterous thing to do that it otherwise wouldn’t happen. The “desire to have children”–as an abstraction–is not what makes sex happen, and the maternal instinct is distinct from sexual drive. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-sex-wasnt-so-fun/674015/17 "2013-11-16T09:22:37Z")
It would be hell on earth. Sex is one of the most basic joys of life, and to remove the joy would be unbearable. There would be a lot of overeating, drinking, smoking, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-sex-wasnt-so-fun/674015/18 "2013-11-16T10:15:22Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, worker bees, ants, termites etc have no sex drive I believe. But they are driven by a queen with a powerful sex drive. We would all become essentially drones. I imagine much less motivated to succeed and probably would spell the end of mankind in just a few generations. From what I understand, the queens mate ONCE in a lifetime, and then spend the rest of their days laying eggs. They don’t have a constant sex drive. And the drones are the males, who are just about always willing to mate. Of course, once they’ve mated, they die, because the penis and various internal organs are ripped from the body of the drone after they mate. Drones are basically just flying penises that hang around a hive, waiting for a virgin queen to be born. Until they get the chance to mate, though, they don’t do a lick of work and will be glad to eat the honey that the workers make. ---
**Author:** ![Ken001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/43a26b/32.png) [@Ken001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ken001)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-sex-wasnt-so-fun/674015/19 "2013-11-16T10:39:35Z")
We don’t yet know enough about the animal kingdom but sexual pleasure seems muted compared to humans. Yet animals reproduce very effectively. Consider fish and an insects - many of the males fertilise eggs laid by the females. There is no direct sexual connection. Female cats have to endure being pierced by a barbed penis. I have no doubt that humans would continue to reproduce. The primal drive to spread genes and the species would kick in. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-sex-wasnt-so-fun/674015/20 "2013-11-16T13:35:24Z")
> [@Ken001](#): > > We don’t yet know enough about the animal kingdom but sexual pleasure seems muted compared to humans. Yet animals reproduce very effectively. They are not however human and have both less intelligence and different instincts than humans. Humans are psychologically built to have a high sex drive; removing it will unbalance humanity socially and psychologically. And while animals may typically not _enjoy_ sex as much as humans they certainly have powerful sex drives. > [@Ken001](#): > > The primal drive to spread genes and the species would kick in. The primary expression of that “primal drive” is sexual desire, which has just been eliminated. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-sex-wasnt-so-fun/674015.md?page=2)