Would women be better off if the human race did not desire sex?
  • Really simple question - pretend lust, and the desire for sex and physical attractiveness is no longer ingrained into human beings. Would women be better off in a society like that, or are they better served in an exploitable model like we have today?

    Pretend that humankind all of a sudden stops having that desire, and has no need to reproduce. How would things change?
  • I think that things would be better all around. Sex is one of the primitive desires, and most primitive desires don't play a positive role in society today. This would solve population control and prevent related future wars.
  • Thefabledgamer said:
    I think that things would be better all around. Sex is one of the primitive desires, and most primitive desires don't play a positive role in society today. This would solve population control and prevent related future wars.


    You don't think that women being desired from most men for sex would perhaps make men treat them worse?
  • Without sex, men would be doomed. Most dudes I know would rather hang out with women because they're pretty, kind, compassionate, beautiful, etc. Dudes don't like hanging out with other smelly hairy dudes who fart and all that shit, at least not all the time. At the same time, most women I know enjoy hanging out with their girlfriends rather than with a bunch of dudes. My guess is that we'd be looking at women hanging out with women and dudes not wanting to hang out with dudes. Society would be really fucked up without sexual uniqueness. Motivation would fluctuate to extreme degrees and lack in others since our scope of impressing the opposite sex would narrow.

    Other primates usually operate like this. The larger ones live alone and only have sex when the woman is in heat. Usually it involves one male for multiple females. In their societies, both genders act similar in how they live, the only difference is what's hanging between their legs or lack thereof.

    I think without a desire for sex, our society would become evolutionarily different. Rather than engaging in meaningful relationships, the only dudes procreating would be the tallest and best looking dudes. The fat, bald, short, ugly men (who are still capable of love now) would die off.

    We evolved into a state like this today. To take that away and to make us a society where we don't desire sex would be setting us back to pre-human times. In a sense, happy-fucking is a contributing reason why humans are able to dominate the ecosystem.

    Society would be screwed without sex.
  • Fuzzy said:

    Society would be screwed without sex.


    he isnt saying there is no sex just the desire for sex.
    anyway
    this could go a million different ways, depending on what you mean sunny. do you mean if humans from the beginning of time didnt desire sex or that suddenly tomorrow people stopped desiring sex? or...do you mean if we evolved similarly to now but we didnt desire sex so as to say there was never porn shops ect ect.
    any of those scenarios i see the population dropping dramatically or never starting in the first place.
  • Well, if we didn't desire sex or reproduction at all, we obviously wouldn't last very long.

    As for social impacts, it's hard to say (especially when it comes to women), but I'm gonna go with my morbid view here - that a state of indifference would sweep the world as there would be no future generation to consider. Every human society is based upon generational dynamics and with it no longer in place, I can see life becoming stagnant for a lot of people as there would be no point to a lot of things. Some people obviously wouldn't care, but that wouldn't stop others from around the world from taking advantage of this situation to give themselves one last snippet of power...since greed and superiority complexes would still exist. :p Without children, there wouldn't be future drones for corporations/governments to exploit, so I could see them battling it out for a new type of resource...the human resource that is left in the world...people willing to still work and fight would be a huge commodity. Governments would do all they could to acquire these last humans as they try to extend their control as much as possible until the bitter end.

    Also, since sex is one of the few basic pleasures people can engage in, and I would guess that in order to replace it (if it was suddenly taken away), the use of other vices would increase. Likely that drug, smoking, and alcohol abuse would rise as well as other reckless behaviors.

    As for women, if people still desired to have a legacy, then women and men would still obviously need each other to make children. Instead of all men having a chance, perhaps it would be limited to only those who were in power...reproduction would no longer be a right but another commodity that could be bought and sold. Perhaps women wouldn't be choosing the best for themselves, but be forced to accommodate to the man rich enough to buy their womb (sounds so classy). Then the future could be like that shitty book, The Handmaid's Tale where women are subjugated and used only for reproductive purposes of the ruling classes.

    and that is my weird dystopian view :)
  • Sexual discrimination against women has its roots in the hunter gatherer society, since women were 'weaker' in terms of physical strength and were also restricted by child birth, they were seen as less able. I don't think a less sexual society would have prevented any of that.

    For humanity as a whole, I am not sure how a lack of sexual desire would change things. That's such a monumental change, and it would make humans distinct from other animals, since reproduction is how we/they survive.
  • Fuzzy said:
    Other primates usually operate like this. The larger ones live alone and only have sex when the woman is in heat. Usually it involves one male for multiple females. In their societies, both genders act similar in how they live, the only difference is what's hanging between their legs or lack thereof.

    I think without a desire for sex, our society would become evolutionarily different. Rather than engaging in meaningful relationships, the only dudes procreating would be the tallest and best looking dudes. The fat, bald, short, ugly men (who are still capable of love now) would die off.

    We evolved into a state like this today. To take that away and to make us a society where we don't desire sex would be setting us back to pre-human times. In a sense, happy-fucking is a contributing reason why humans are able to dominate the ecosystem.

    Society would be screwed without sex([b0OR BEER[/b]).


    Hurrah! YAY Beer!!
  • Yes and no.

    Yes because there would be no way to discriminate based on sex.

    No because there would be no reason to celebrate women. Who and what we are. What makes us different and special.

    One could, naturally, say the same thing about men. I think each gender has something to offer. I think that gender stereotyping is where we get ourselves in trouble.

    I like that I'm different physically. I like that men are different from me. I like that we compliment eachother in different ways. I wish I could experience things that only men get to experience (not having a period once a month, or having a physiology made for having a very powerfully muscular body, etc...). I'm sure there's men that feel the same about certain things about women (birthing thing, having greater endurance, not having a thing hanging on the outside of your body that some one can kick and it kills, etc...).

    Whatever the case, I figure humanity evolved this way for a reason. Only amoeba asexually reproduce.
  • Brisby said:

    As for women, if people still desired to have a legacy, then women and men would still obviously need each other to make children. Instead of all men having a chance, perhaps it would be limited to only those who were in power...reproduction would no longer be a right but another commodity that could be bought and sold. Perhaps women wouldn't be choosing the best for themselves, but be forced to accommodate to the man rich enough to buy their womb (sounds so classy). Then the future could be like that shitty book, The Handmaid's Tale where women are subjugated and used only for reproductive purposes of the ruling classes.

    and that is my weird dystopian view :)


    also ^^ this.

    And for a very VERY dystopian view (not recommended IN ANY WAY for minors)

    The Female Man
    by Joanna Russ

    Highly critcized feminist viewpoint from the 70s written at the height of the sexual revolution. It's not a great book but explores many of the not so nice points Brisby is talking about and many of the beliefs held by ultra-militant feminist groups of the time.


    Handmaid's Tale is a great book but similarly disturbing.
  • My response was a little off earlier, I rush-read everything prior.

    To answer the topic question more directly, I think women would be totally screwed if it weren't for sexual desire. I agree with Brisby's comments that without emotional connections and desires, women could become simple reproductive machines.

    I'm going to be a little blunt and I don't mean to be sexist in any way in the following statements;

    To me, it seems that our western society almost praises women for their sexuality and the overall desirablity that they can be. Clothing companies exist for the sole purpose of allowing women to express parts of their body in ways that attract men. That's why magazines like Cosmo have subtitles on the cover like "10 steps to make your boobs look good" and other things like that. Society emphasizes and makes important the sexual differences that women posess. It sets you apart, on a pedestal in that area. Women are no longer objects which cook our food and keep our houses clean; they're objects to be desired and sought after. Guys buy fancy clothes and nice cars to impress women, they take them to fancy resturants and buy them dinner solely to win their affection, which translates into the broader context of winning them as a prize...almost.

    While a man may work hard to impress a women because of his sexual attraction to her, she still has the right to choose who she wants to be with, which means she isn't really a prize at all, but she's still labled in the cloudy lens of "sought after by many." She's wanted as a trophy because of who she is, but is given freedom so that she can choose whose trophy she wants to be.

    That's extremely sexist sounding, but I'm sure you could turn the tables and use the same vocabulary for men in the above sentances. Women don't want a slob, no matter how rich he is or how nice his clothes are. Guys have expectations for their own sexuality too. I think in the context of western society, guys can be equally sought after as a "trophy" as a woman can. The only thing is, I think the idea of the "trophy wife" is more common because we've already lived through a period in history (post WWII) where there were only "trophy wives" and never "trophy husbands." Maybe that's why topics like this one exists; women still feel oppressed.

    This whole post has been awkward and I know that because I've neglected the entire fact that maybe the "praising of women's sexuality" is actually a jail sentance for them. Maybe Cosmo isn't making them feel good about themselves, but rather set stressful and unrealistic expecations on a gender which is constantly portrayed under a microscope in terms of what is the most beautiful, the most amazing, and the best looking people ever (media, Hollywood, etc.) Maybe it's not "praising sexuality" at all, but rather ball and chain attached to every woman's leg as a reminder that they need to work harder to earn their respect as equals to men, when in reality they should be accepted as equals regardless of how they look or what they do (this is how men live already anyway).

    Hell, in this post alone I've realized the double-standard here. Personally, I don't think I belive that women's sexuality is truly "praised" as state above. Society may say that we're celebrating it, but we're not. The barriers that isolate women, or the ideal woman, apart is the stereotypes and unfair expectations that we place on them in the first place. There is no celebration of sexuality here, just old-world constraints that have taken on new forms and look differently. I'd go as far as to say that the same sexist roles that women were assigned in post-WWII America are equivalent to the media-flaunted image of women today. Back then, the belief was that the perfect woman cooked 3 meals a day, cleaned the house, and supported her man. Today, the belief is that the perfect woman is thin, tan, and has boobs like Kim Kardashian. Different era, different look, same sexist social restrictions.

    It's in my social opinion that women are still not complete equals to men on a social scale; society still treats them too differently. In a way, society restricts women by over-encouraging them to be a reflective symbol of the women portrayed on magazines like Cosmopolitan.

    I've ever been in a grocery store line and saw an equivalent to Cosmo for men with subtitles like "how to be a more compasionate boyfriend" and "10 ways to really make her feel loved." I'd probably buy that magazine, because that's who I am and I think our culture could use a more leveled playing field for both men and women. Sadly, society isn't there yet.

    I think if everything were to fall apart, society crumbles and a new revolution happens tomorrow, I think women would be screwed because they don't seem to be viewed as total equals during the time of the revolution itself.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Most Popular This Week