Posted on 06/27/2010 9:33:24 AM PDT by buccaneer81
No Sex Please, We’re Middle Class By CAMILLE PAGLIA Published: June 25, 2010
WILL women soon have a Viagra of their own? Although a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel recently rejected an application to market the drug flibanserin in the United States for women with low libido, it endorsed the potential benefits and urged further research. Several pharmaceutical companies are reported to be well along in the search for such a drug.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Does the Phrase ,”I have a head ache”, Sound familiar?
Yeah, so? You gotta problem with that?
Ask your mom.
“Yeah, so? You gotta problem with that? “
I suppose I am spoiled.
My spouse is fabulous!
I would NEVER be satisfied with just the physical aspect of sex. It is the EMOTIONAL aspect of sex, that makes it “out of this world”. So personally speaking, not having the EMOTIONAL aspect of sex, would be too mechanical for me - I'm spoiled ... I have the best of BOTH WORLDS - PHYSICAL and EMOTIONAL!
Let me know when they get it perfected - that is odorless, colorless, tasteless, and readily soluble in liquids. Some side effects are permitted (like short-term memory loss).
What you're saying seems to be reasonable assumption on both the "common sense" and "intuitive" level, except for one thing; it's not true.
Historically, it's when incomes go UP, food-per-person goes UP, availability of post-secondary education goes UP, that birthrates plunge and childbearing bottoms out. Odd, I know.
Take a look at this: New York City's borough of Manhattan is the richest county in the United States. In particular, ZIP code 10021 on Manhattan's Upper East Side, with over 100,000 inhabitants and a per capita income of over $90,000, has one of the largest concentrations of extreme wealth in the United States. But fertility is far lower in Manhattan (1.3) than in Mexico City (2.22) and lower in Mexico City than in Iraq (4.1).
If you look at a chart showing world fertility rates (link) you find the opposite of what you would predict: the richer the country gets, the lower the fertility rate drops. Fertility is been dropping all over the world since 1970 or so, just as literacy and education become universal and over-all nutritional sufficiency is attained (with the main nutrition-related problems being obesity and diabetes.)
So in fact, when people get wealthy and well-fed, far fewer kids get born.
And the bottom 30 nations on this chart probably won't even exist as independent ethnic entities 60 years from now.
They'll be taken over by more-fertile immigration and invasion.
What you're saying seems to be reasonable assumption on both the "common sense" and "intuitive" level, except for one thing; it's not true.
Historically, it's when incomes go UP, food-per-person goes UP, availability of post-secondary education goes UP, that birthrates plunge and childbearing bottoms out. Odd, I know.
Take a look at this: New York City's borough of Manhattan is the richest county in the United States. In particular, ZIP code 10021 on Manhattan's Upper East Side, with over 100,000 inhabitants and a per capita income of over $90,000, has one of the largest concentrations of extreme wealth in the United States. But fertility is far lower in Manhattan (1.3) than in Mexico City (2.22) and lower in Mexico City than in Iraq (4.1).
If you look at a chart showing world fertility rates (link) you find the opposite of what you would predict: the richer the country gets, the lower the fertility rate drops. Fertility is been dropping all over the world since 1970 or so, just as literacy and education become universal and over-all nutritional sufficiency is attained (with the main nutrition-related problems being obesity and diabetes.)
So in fact, when people get wealthy and well-fed, far fewer kids get born.
And the bottom 30 nations on this chart probably won't even exist as independent ethnic entities 60 years from now.
They'll be taken over by more-fertile immigration and invasion.
As you pointed out as the COST of living goes up the kids go down, why? In Europe people cannot afford to have kids, getting the same way here.
I’ve found that alcohol works best.
Alot of that depends on the particular woman's definition of "successful", which may explain the varying birth rates between upper middle class and underclass women.
What is Class, are we not all citizens?
Yes but the subject isn’t fertility, it’s is libido, sex drive.
Add a "w" and an "o" to that sentence, and I can totally agree with you.
Hmmmmm..... And where, exactly, is "here"?
Good point, but I wasn’t responding to Paglia’s article, I was responding to Little Bill.
But I didn't say that. I said that as prosperity goes up, kids go down.
People had a lot less disposable income in 1960 than they have now, but 50 years ago they had a lot more kids. U.S. fertility rate 1959 was almost 4, now just a whisker over 2.
My paternal great-grandparents --- not peasants: urban, working class --- (he an iron foundry coremaker, she a fulltime homemaker) had 11 kids. Paternal grandparents, a cut above that economically, had 5. My parents had 2. My husband and I have 2. 11 - 5 - 2 - 2 is a pretty typical 4-generation decline in this country.
"Why? In Europe people cannot afford to have kids, getting the same way here."
"Cannot afford"? Compared to what? Compared to when? Cannot afford it compared to their parents in the 80's, their grandparents in the rubble of WWII? Their great-grandparents in the 30's? But their great-grandparents had more kids than they do.
LOL
probably far...
Well, you’ve been to my state, so I have a 1 in 23 chance!
Living means that they had kids, the cost of living has gone up and a good portion of my cousins only have 2-4 kids now.
You responded to me too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.