Kids still need to be raised, y’know. If it DID result in the end of long-term partnering, then human societies (at least, those that emphasize family units) would have to drastically change to support this. Hillary Clinton was excoriated by a lot of people for saying, “it takes a village to raise a child” and that philosophy would be fundamental to continuing the human race in your scenario.
I also rather doubt everyone would be thrilled with the idea of assisting in the rearing of children they have no biological connection to. You can’t even get everyone to support the idea of a robust governmental social safety net that would support children in poverty.
True, sexual desire is the PRIMARY drive toward reproduction, but not the ONLY one, at least in humans. Surely there would be enough people that desire children and a family that the species could sustain itself.
Also, I don’t think the traditional family unit would immediately disintegrate (no more marriage) since its been traditional for thousands of years. In fact, I would imagine that without sex hormones fogging things up, people would make more rational and thought out choices for life partners and it could conceivably result in a lower divorce rate and more stable families.
I know nothing about your personal life but that sounds like someone who has never been in a relationship. Hell, to go the other way I’ve had sex with plenty of friends. Just because we were having sex did not mean that I got everything I needed from them or that I didn’t want something more from the right person. The relationship and depth of feelings is not sex dependant. Talking like that you sound like Steve Carrell saying breasts feel like bags of sand.
Is the OP assuming that the brain chemicals we get from sex or being in love are also gone? Because if so, that would change a lot. If not, the bonding from sex isn’t all about it being “fun” so much as it is a chemical response much like the chemical response parents get with a baby that makes them fall in love.
Is it not the case that until relatively recently, love really was at best a bonus when it came to marriage? People married for dynastic reasons. I could see a return to that.
Probably, but it would be something done grimly as a duty.
On the contrary, without sex to serve its function as social bonding relationships would be far less stable. There’d be fewer marriages if any, more divorces and probably a lot more domestic violence. And while marriage has existed for thousands of years, the sex drive predates that by millions.
And as for people making “rational and thought out choices for life partners”; the rational choice is not to have one. No sex drive, no need for a “life partner” and probably no interest in one. They’d just get in the way by forcing constant compromises with your own desires and by being constantly irritating, with no reward for having them around. Just a roommate, really. If you want a kid, you can just send for some sperm or hire a woman to carry the kid without having to deal with the opposite gender on a personal level.
That’s what I’m wondering. Take away the sex drive and does everyone turn bisexual? You could run the scenario either way: people could still have a preference to be intimate with the opposite sex. Or not. Do people still enjoy making out in the OP’s world?
Assuming women still have a drive for pro-creation, methinks the tables would be turned somewhat. Sure, lots of guys want to have kids. But the inclination is stronger with women AFAIK.
I don’t see why they’d be interested in being intimate with anything.
I doubt it, that’s a sexual thing.
Actually I think it more likely that with the lack in interest in sex and the resulting population crash you’d see a major backslide in women’s rights and gender relationships. You’d probably see a big push in many places for women to be coerced or outright forced into the role of “breeders” to “save the human race from extinction”.
A worthy question… essentially I’m suggesting that LUST would no longer exist (defined as an intense desire for intercourse) but I’m not sure that would preclude simple attraction or indeed if they are separate things at all, except by degree.
I would say that the nothing in my scenario would affect one’s ability to recognize attractiveness, similar to the way that I now, as a straight man, can acknowledge that another man is good looking, or that my sister is an attractive woman, without being sexually attracted to either. But the interesting part is how would our definition of “physically attractive” change, if at all, in this scenario. ISTM that it is very much wrapped up in our sexuality, and we’ve just turned that on its ear.
I would think so - I’m not sure how with is for women, but for men - at least me - I have zero sex drive after sex. Zip, nada, nothing. I intellectually know this is temporary and therefore don’t do anything against my own interests of course
But even with zero sex drive - I’m still physically attracted to beautiful women. I want to be with them - and not just so they are available for when I am horny. Of course I probably wouldn’t be doing as much wining and dining…
Ooh - but my guess is there wouldn’t be as much trimming going on as there is now. So electric razor companies would lose out some.
Then you might have to actually answer the question is masturbation really good for you? As I am guessing 99.9999% of people currently doing it aren’t doing it for possible health benefits (which may be indirectly related to it being fun anyway).
I would tend to agree, but I’m specifically suggesting a scenario where it was pleasurable and then quite suddenly became not so.
Back in pre-history, sex had to be fun or it probably wouldn’t have happened much (if at all). Our early ancestors didn’t understand the link between sex and babies. But we do now. So keeping the human race alive would not be all that hard. Sure, birth rates would plummet, but we were getting overcrowded anyway.
As I’ve said before, I believe more than half of all pregnancies are unplanned (but not necessarily unwanted or unwelcome). But that still leaves a large percentage that happened because someone made the conscious decision to bring a life into the world. I think the desire to have children could sustain the species even if we were to somehow make sex distinctly unpleasurable (as long as it is only slightly so). After all, childbirth is no picnic but it hasn’t stopped women from having babies, and I don’t personally know of any mother who says that having a child was not worth the pain of childbirth.
I hadn’t given much thought to the actual mechanism by which this tragedy would be thrust upon us, but some sort of dopamine blocking seems like the most logical/realistic. I would say that the chemicals still exist but that sex no longer triggers the chemical response (but a baby’s smile still does:))
I think if it wasn’t pleasurable it would have to be unpleasurable. It would be gross, weird, and awkward, not just neutral.
And yeah, I still can’t figure out if you could be attracted to people or not (not just recognize that they’re attractive, but personally be attracted to them). Maybe it would be like when you were a young kid with a crush on someone.
Do you really believe that sex is the only reason for having a relationship or a marriage or a relationship? Because believe me, you need none of those to have sex. If I wanted no one to share my life with I could just continue some of my FWB trysts or just pay for it. Either you have had really shitty relationships or you have had none. Remember, the premise did not take away human emotions, just pleasure in orgasms. I am as far from being a hopeless romantic as you can get but I find it ridiculous to think that sex is the only reason for marriage.
