What if men had no sex drive?

Post Reply New Topic

I would still educate myself whether I wanted sex or not. If anything, lack of sex drive would make people even MORE inclined to focus on other things like getting a degree, reading etc

No its BS, what logical reason do you have for there to be that large of a gap between the abilities of the sexes? I feel dull would be a more fit adjective instead of blunt.

Women are extremely sexual beings, just like men, contrary to puritanical pseudoscience.

My dear boy, it's quite wonderful you take the time to sit and think about these things, however, I believe your theory is in need of a substantial amount of revision.

Humans come from the same "template" if you will. This is why men have nipples. A person who is lacking one sex chromosome, in other words, who has an X0 make up, also known as Turner's Syndrome, appears female, because in absence of anything to say otherwise, the human body will develop into the female form. This is also why men with androgen insensitivity syndrome appear female even though their sexual genetic makeup is XY.

For the human body to fully masculinize, a sufficient amount of androgen must be delivered to the fetus in the womb. This androgen affects the brain and causes genitalia to form into a phallic structure. In the absence of this androgen, or an inability to respond to it, female genitalia will form. At puberty, a sufficient amount of testosterone must be produced. This causes masculinization of the skeletal structure, deepening of the voice, muscle generation, and causes the enlargement of the genitalia.

In the absence of testosterone, for whatever reason, the person will develop into what appears to be a small breasted, narrow hipped female.

Administration of these hormones to females with a typical XX makeup at the proper time in their development will also cause them to masculinize. They will look like men, however they will not produce sperm as they will not have functioning testes.

In terms of emotional effects, testosterone tends to translate negative emotions to anger, and the response is more likely to be aggression or hostility, but having higher than normal testosterone levels doesn't mean a man is more aggressive or angrier than other men because there are other factors involved.

Estrogen and progesterone are the primary hormones at play in women. These levels fluctuate significantly throughout the month and are the process by which her body prepares for, produces, and releases an egg.

The effects of these hormones on emotions is still poorly understood. As with the case of men and testosterone, actual levels of either of these hormones do not correlate with an increase or decrease in positive or negative emotions. The mechanisms by which they affect a woman's emotional response probably depends on various factors. Only about 3% of women suffer from severe depressive episodes related to their menstrual cycles.

So to claim that women are more emotional than men, and that there is a biological basis for it, is a bit of a poor proclamation, as the term phrase "more emotional" was never defined and there are no studies or collection of studies which provide a sound model of the ways in which these hormones affect emotions.

If by "more emotional" you mean that women experience a greater range of emotions than men, I don't think this is true. I simply think that women are more likely to express negative emotions in the raw form, and men are more likely to quickly translate them to anger before expressing them.

If you mean by "more emotional" that women experience a higher fluctuation of emotions. This is true to a small extent but is not representative of the majority of women during the course of their every day life.

Differences in how men and women experience and express emotions also has large cultural components, which can be difficult to weed out from biological components.

Never doubted "abilities", theres probably have a dozen woman smarter than me and I actually like that. I'm talking about roles. And har har i c wut u did thar with the whole "dull" adjective.


No doubt but I think its safe to say that men have a significantly higher sex drive just based on the hormones differences between men and woman and I would also think that men are less selective and woman are not...does that not strike you as correlating to what I'm getting across. This isn't even rocket science its just observations of course...I could be wrong but I'm not really feeling it.


Nice condescending tone for the start, it definatly gets me going, not really. Anyway's you still have not addressed the male and female roles yet as that's really the most significant portion of my analysis. BTW I'm quite well aware of how human's develop I just thought it was worth noting that observations from Idk the past 1000+ years of living animals would say something.

Last edited by Aspie101MD on 15 Jan 2011, 5:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Read the post directly above yours. Learn.

Will do.

your use of the word design implies innate characteristics, and while your use of the word developed does imply some change it doesn't eliminate the implication that women are innately meant to receive, your words imply that you are discussing genetic roles if you are not could you clarify and explain your choice of words?

Good job! Now do the second part.

I doubt things are that simple.

A bit slow on the catch are we? its okay I a bit slow myself with editing that.




I try to look at them as complex things because it adds mystery to it which really gets me going.

In all honesty though I would like to see some complex details as to why I'm wrong...I play devil's advocate hard to dig into things. I'm actually very open minded. I usually wait for the big long post with the details why..its nice to see intelligence put to hard use in an argument and I respect that but Im still waiting

I don't generally bother to argue online to strangers unless I feel strongly about issues.
I'd rather spend my time being happy and trying not to upset people and their beliefs.

That's funny, that open-minded bit.

Really, it was.

Just because I pointed out flaws in your theory does not mean I'm being condescending. Perhaps you should not share your views if you become hurt when one tries to enter into an intellectual debate, or discussion with you, or when one can counter them.

Haha agreed its more stressful than it should be and I of course respect but question peoples beliefs. But wikipedia didn't seam to have anything insightful on the target.


What part of "I play devil's advocate hard didn't you get"?


Haha no I wasn't "hurt" I just picked up the "Oh, boy" as being traditionally condescending...pretty common actually but I must have misinterpreted it, not like we both haven't done that before I like criticism though, it allows for learning like now but I still am not seeing even of that "counter" you speak of.

what uptake would that be?