4 ms·
I wonder if this is environment driven where maybe there is some kind of chemical gotten into their food chain that inhibits the libido.
by shams93 4y ago
I wonder if this is environment driven where maybe there is some kind of chemical gotten into their food chain that inhibits the libido.
- throwawaysleep 4y agoI could easily see it being that we are otherwise happy, making sex less worth the effort to obtain. Or porn. If I have a sexual itch, I just go to porn. I am someone who in my mid 20s has never had a relationship. Not worth the effort to me.
- thfuran 4y agoMost people get more out of a relationship than sex.
- akiselev 4y agoI think most people don't internalize that fact until the emotional shock of their first big breakup.
- debesyla 4y agoBut with today's fluid relationship types - a classical couple relationship isn't needed as much, isn't it? And on top of that, a lot of problems that were before solved by having a partner (something breaking, don't know how to cook, just lonely and want to chat, etc) now can be solved by various businesses and services. I think that it's possible that for some people classical relationships aren't as optimal anymore.
- jl6 4y agoI think a lot of people are desperately unhappy and lonely and a classical relationship (either sexual, or simply close friendship) is exactly what is missing from their lives, and all the businesses and services that try to fill this gap aren’t cutting it.
- BlargMcLarg 4y agoThey aren't trying to fill the gap. Filling the gap would make the profits dry up.
- thfuran 4y agoNot if you fill it with a service rather than durable goods.
- togs 4y agoThey get the purchasing power to afford a mortgage.
- manquer 4y agoNot just that , Sometimes you get much less sex than not being in a relationship. Quality of sex can drop as well.
- thomastjeffery 4y agoI expect most people get more out of sex than sexual stimulation and orgasms. For one thing, there's the validation that someone is interested in having sex with you in the first place.
- throwawaysleep 4y agoFair. I have been told this before but keep forgetting.
- threads2 4y agohow do you know its not worth the effort if you've never had it?
- throwawaysleep 4y agoI suppose I do not, in the same way that I do not know whether learning the Ukulele will change my life. But that is not strong motivation to do either.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- manquer 4y agoNot OP or in same situation. Your line of questioning is not useful and is perhaps okay to use on 5year old child to eat broccoli. I can use same argument you make for drugs or mass murders or anything else . the rational way to evaluate an activity is the perceived value , effort needed and our desire to do it. There could be informed discussion on why the perceived value is so low or natural desire is not strong, but arguing try it once is not helpful.
- thfuran 4y ago>but arguing try it once is not helpful Why not? If you want to get a better idea of how much you'd value an experience, doing it seems like a pretty good idea, and this certainly falls more towards the eating broccoli end of the spectrum of moral reprehensibility and likelihood of ruining your life than taking up recreational murder or heroin.
- jonesjoneses 4y agoI felt the exact same way until I hit 30. Now I feel so utterly alone and all I want is to have a family to care for. Most people can only deny their genetic programming for so long.
- nh23423fefe 4y agoSeems impossible and makes no sense.
- vosper 4y agoWhy is it impossible for something to get into the food chain for a large number of people? You've got loads of spraying, processing and packaging going on in the industrial food chain. Even if you have myriad producers, ruling out an issue due to centralization of processing, they might all be wrapping their product in the same materials.
- nh23423fefe 4y agoIt's conspiracy theory that simple point in time causes have widespread diffuse effects. Imagining there is "something in the water" is paranoia
- omniglottal 4y agoThere, in fact, is something in the water. One substance is a known neurotoxin used to treat tooth decay, but statistically seen to decrease IQ. You can call it paranoia, but that makes you more out of touch with reality while you quash viable, accurate discourse. Japan's culture already predisposes its citizens to more estrogenics than the US consumer sees... but go on, let's have another few decades of indoctrinated ignorance because you cannot be honest and accurate about reality. Don't attribute to paranoia your own distinct lack of thought about extant phenomenea. If an effect exists, causes exist which far outweigh your inability to measure them distinctly.
- the_only_law 4y agoI like how instead of expanding on your idea, you use weasel-wording and spend more time attacking GP. That makes you more trustworthy.
- vosper 4y agoSure, but there's a difference between "impossible" and "not supported by current evidence". As another poster points out, there is an example with flouride (though I am no anti-flouridist). Other examples might be widespread use of BPA and PFAS. Air-pollution might be another example of something that could effect much of a population (though it's not in the food chain). I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and until we have strong scientific evidence I won't claim that there are population-wide effects. But saying it's "impossible" is wrong.