Conference quark::human_relations-v1

        There are a fairly broad number of reasons that people indulge
        in sex. Sex is used for reproduction, pair bonding, pleasure,
        the expression of power and the release of tension, to name 5
        things off the top of my head.
        
        Your hypotheical operation only affects one of these aspects,
        and conceivably in only half the population. Because of this, I
        dont think the results would be as simple as you expect, nor in
        the direction that you suspect.
        
        If men were not capable of sexual pleasure it would not
        seriously reduce the incidence of "first degree" rape--the
        classic nameless violence against strangers. Such crimes are not
        sexually motivated they are power motivated. It might reduce the
        amount of date rape, to the extent that some such incidents come
        from the man's assumption that the woman wants what he wants as
        much as he wants it. 
        
        If the men were still capable of feeling sexual desire, but not
        of fulfilling it, the incidence might very well go up. If only
        men could not feel sexual pleasure rape would almost certainly
        go up, as men feeling both the frustration of their own desire
        and resentment for the satisfaction of women would be very
        likely to express that frustration and resentment in a greater
        incidence of sexual assault.
        
        If women were incapable of sexual pleasure it would probably not
        affect the incidence of rape at all except possibly to increase
        it. Men do not rape for the pleasure of women. If men could not
        give sexual pleasure to women they might feel less potent, and
        that leads to the kind of frustration that can express itself in
        the crime of rape.
        
        As long as sexual desire exists, whether or not it can be
        gratified, people will feel it and act upon it. Thus there would
        still be gay men and lesbian women even if neither sex could
        feel sexual pleasure. Mere sexual pleasure is not at the root of
        a very large fraction of sexual attraction.
        
        If only one sex ciuld experience sexual pleasure, I would guess
        that homosexuality among that sex would go up. Giving pleasure
        is very nearly as gratifying as receiving it for many human
        beings. Having the object of your desire desire you and being
        able to give them pleasure is very important to human sexuality.
        If only half the population could respond, then they would
        become more attractive.
        
        All-in-all, I would say the model assumed by this question is
        fair too simple and shows only a very limited understanding of
        human sexuality and its complexities.
        
        JimB. 

    There was a Kurt Vonnegut story about this subject - anyone remember
    which story it was?

    re .0:
    
    I don't think that many of your suppositions are valid.  I think
    marriage would still exist - even without sex, humans have a need
    for intamacy.  Same goes for your supposition that gayness would
    go away.  In fact, without the sexual element in such intimate
    relationships, there would probably be more pair-bonding between
    members of the same sex.
    
    Along the same linds, I think little would happen to productivity
    standards.  People would still have personal problems, if not with
    their lover, it would be with their close friends and (hatchling?)
    children.  There would still be hobbies of all kinds that would
    detract from interest in 'useful' work.
    
    For the reasons JimB stated in .1, rape would probably either be
    the same, or possibly go up, depending on what was done to whom.
    It is not a crime of sexual passion - it's a crime of violence,
    motivated by power needs, frustration, hatred, anger, and so forth.
    If both sexes were unable to 'perform' sexually, we could get into
    semantics - it would no longer be rape, but possibly some other
    form of assult due to physical limitations.
    
    The only social 'problem' that this might solve would be that of
    prostitution.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    
    	Since when has prostitution been a social problem? That it's
    illegal is more likely to be a problem in society...
    
    	Things would be unimaginably different if people were seperated
    into a "breeding" and "working" class at birth - yuck! Wouldnt have
    much of a need for Rock and Roll anymore...
    
    	Perhaps some research into the lives of (what'd they do to those
    little guys a long time ago over in Italy so they could sing higher
    longer?) would shed some light on "what would happen"...
    
    	Joe Jas
    

    Sex was the LEAST reason I decided to marry.  There is certainly
    no limitations on sex while single today.
    
    I would still have married, had a child, and be about 90% as happy
    about it all as I am now!  (well maybe 80%...)
    
    
    jacki