File under “Duh.” But it’s good to know that having a lot of sex will make you happier than having a lot of money.
Sex makes you happy
Previous post: Mailer v. Kakutani
Next post: Malkin (hearts) Discrimination
Previous post: Mailer v. Kakutani
Next post: Malkin (hearts) Discrimination
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 21 comments }
Why do these people keep having these surveys? They could have just asked me and I could have told them that. Just think what I could have done with the money!
;-)
Explains why so many Republicans, especially the wealthier ones, seem to be a bit grumpy and eventually become obsessed with other’s sex lives.
Arrgh. This makes me dislike even more my lack of communication skills with people I like. No wonder I’m depressed. ;)
I think it’s time for some pursuit of happiness today. :)
I would rather have the money, then you can just buy the sex…
:D
Brings a new meaning to “Come on, get happy.”
Well now I know were my grumpy attitude comes from. :)
Does this new evidence get introduced into sex ed classes? It’s only fair to let teenagers know that the abstinence only or even abstinence prefered folks are trying to deprive them of something that might make them quite happy. True, it can be dangerous, but so can money and I rarely see people telling teenagers that they shouldn’t try to make money.
If this is true, then why are there so many people on antidepressants these days, four decades after the sexual revolution?
Joseph: Abstinence ed.
I’m just sayin’.
What I’d really like to know is, if we’re still producing enough babies to keep the human race from dying out, why are fewer women dying in childbirth? And why is infant mortality so much lower?
It’s called a confounding variable–actually, in this case, there are many more than one. There are plenty of other things in this country that can cause depression and stress than celibacy, and plenty of other aspects of daily life that have changed over the past four decades. Also, anti-depressants were neither as developed nor as commonly prescribed forty years ago. In fact, depression itself wasn’t recognized or treated as frequently.
yo Joseph
if you take a look at the history of antidepressant use in the US you’ll find that it really didn’t become a significant phenomenon until the late 80s/early 90s when Prozac was introduced – in other words: not four decades ago. up until then, antidepressants were not commonly prescribed (or imbibed).
also, the “sexual revolution” could be said to be older than four decades. no really, it’s true! folks have been doing the nasty & havin’ thangs with not so much as a “pardon me” for some time now! then again, it could also be not much more than a media fabrication… a neat way of packaging cultural evolution for commercial consumption. but whatevs – somehow i doubt you were asking a serious question.
Jam – they were overprescribing antidepressants back in the late 1960s, when my mother refused to take the prescription for “sleeping pills” they gave her to handle her disfunctional family, broken romance, and general stress due to the war/us imperialism/American obliviousness to the rest of the world.
They also handed out barbituates like candy to “hysterical” women in the 50s. Before that, it was laudanum, the 19th century version of oxycontin to which Anna Karenina gets addicted. (Unapproved unprescribed substances at the same time included the hot new drug of choice, ether, popular among depressed teens and others in depressed economic areas, and ye olde standby througout all human history, alcohol…)
One of the reasons why the current forms got overprescribed in the 80s/90s is that they seemed, unlike the older ones, to be both nonaddictive and to have no dangerous side effects. But dealing with the symptoms of our insane and abusive society by handing out painkillers is a very long tradition.
“There are plenty of other things in this country that can cause depression and stress than celibacy…”
Celibacy does NOT cause depression and stress.
Oh yes it does, if it’s not wanted.
If you don’t think celibacy causes stress, you’ve never been to a singles mixer and smelled the horny desperation on people.
“If you don’t think celibacy causes stress, you’ve never been to a singles mixer and smelled the horny desperation on people.”
Imprecision is your enemy, and it has defeated you utterly. Celibacy does NOT cause depression and stress. Attempting to conform to hideously anti-celibate social customs causes depression and stress.
Fair enough. But no one ever said that you have to have sex. Do you honestly think anyone here is going to quarrel with the fact that in the great diversity of humanity, some people want lots of sex and some want none, and it’s all cool? Jill and I both have openly supported asexual people, after all.
“But no one ever said that you have to have sex.”
Everyone says that. A lot of it is implicit, but it’s no less insidious for that. The all-but-universal response to open celibacy ranges from pity to derision to insincerity, usually followed by a reassertion of the supposed normalcy of the hypersexual “fuck anything at any time” attitude. The only time celibacy is even marginally respected is when it’s an external imposition (deformity, religious vows). I would have expected an avowed feminist to be particularly aware of the pressures society exerts on people to fulfill their expected gender roles, but I see now I was wrong to do so.
I’ll go a step futher…I’ve always thought that no sex makes you crazy.
Bellatrys said: Jam – they were overprescribing antidepressants back in the late 1960s, when my mother refused to take the prescription for “sleeping pills” … But dealing with the symptoms of our insane and abusive society by handing out painkillers is a very long tradition.
interesting, Bellatrys. it was my impression that up until the development of Prozac & its analogs in the late80s-early90s there was no real mass market for antidepressants in the US. i was also under the impression that tranquilizers & sedatives (valium, librium, etc.) were the most widely prescribed pharms in the 60s & 70s, not antidepressants.
that said, i could well be wrong &/or misinformed. i’ve had my understanding of history turned on its head more than once.
Comments on this entry are closed.