Would you rather have a really high libido or a really low libido?

 

Which is most beneficial to have when living in the Western World?

 

What does everyone think?

 

Also, which is most beneficial to society as a whole?

 

Certainly a lower libido would mean lower rape crimes, right?

Edited April 3, 201213 yr by Mr Rayon

Rape tends to be an expression of aggression and anger, not libido and desire to procreate.

As to the question, with population growth being what it is, the finite number of resources, and the way we're polluting every habitat we join... I tend to think lower libido is better for society as a whole, but not so low that we die off due to lack of progeny.

Agree with iNow about the tendentious connexion between libido and rape. I would also question the presupposition that libido and birth rate are high in the western world - rates of reproduction are at a low point. "Society as a whole" - whatever that is - probably benefits most from individuals behaving naturally and by the members of the community not judging adversely those whose behaviour differs from their own. I am not a great fan of repression, whether it is born of societal mores or personal hangups, and feel the world would be a better place if we just learnt to turn on, tune in, and drop out

Taking into account all the factors involved in determining the birthrate, including frequency of intercourse and the availability of birth control I think the number of children born per family unit has little to do with libido. Most fertile couples in the Western World chose the number of children they want. Degree of fertility, however, is another matter.

It probably depends where you are in society too. If you are a straight man, in jail with a lot of other straight men then a high libido is just going to add to your problems.

 

Also, at the risk of getting lynched for saying this, there is an absurd failure to notice that women have a libido too.

If all women were permanently "gagging for it" then rape would be rather poorly defined and somewhat rarer.

 

It's a very complex issue and I think the way in which the question is set seems simplistic.

..../

Also, at the risk of getting lynched for saying this, there is an absurd failure to notice that women have a libido too.

Good point - and highlights the old phallusy that male desire is the only driving force etc...

 

If all women were permanently "gagging for it" then rape would be rather poorly defined and somewhat rarer.

Er.. .no! No and No. Really NO! Whilst the argument that rape is solely about power is outdated and perhaps overly simplistic, it is also completely wrong to assume that rape is primarily or mainly motivated through sexual libido. On the definition; rape is clearly defined and the general mood of the populace will not affect that definition.

 

It's a very complex issue and I think the way in which the question is set seems simplistic.

yep.

Edited April 3, 201213 yr by imatfaal

OK, so this would be a ludicrous plot for a bad porn movie but imagine a planet where the women really were unable to say no because they have such a high libido.

 

Sex isn't rape as long as it's consensual. The two parties' motivation(s) are not part of the equation. If he wants it for power and she wants it for sexual excitement, that's not rape.

There is the issue of her saying, "I''m desperate, but not that desperate." to an unattractive bloke, but that's just a failure to have such a high libido that she really doesn't care.

 

I said it would make the definition tricky.