Jump to content

Talk:Libido/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"sexual desire was originally for animals to reproduce" - POV

This is a point of view. "Sexual desire was originally FOR something" - that implies an intelligent designer with a plan in mind, and that sexual desire serves a purpose. That is not everyone's view, and it is logically impossible to substantiate it with any evidence. Sexual desire just IS, and reproduction and pleasure are both side effects of it, but it is a POV judgment to say that one is the PURPOSE of desire and one is not. Please remove.

Darwin showed that we would not exist as a species without reproductive success as a species. Human beings had already deduced that the individual would not exist without food. Hunger, thirst, the need to sleep, and the sex drive may make us feel like animals, but we are animals. With all due respect, there is an obvious underlying reason for the sex drive, and that is reproduction. It doesn't mean you as an individual have to reproduce in order to get enjoyment from sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.28.149 (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, if you are going to quote on Darwin, show the sources reference. Also, although the sex drive might be meant for reproductive success, it does not mean it exists solely for that purpose. The whole debate on teleology seems out of place. As the first paragraph of an article, it should focus on *what* is libido, not what it *was* **originally** ***meant*** for. Removing. capi (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what I think of your overall point, but "logically impossible to substantiate with any evidence" is quite a bold claim.0nullbinary0 (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Jung

Don't the Jungians have a more libido-friendly take on this?

I thought Jung's definition of Libido was "Psyche Energy"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.88.11.139 (talk • contribs) how to reduce one's libido Im gettin annoyed by it?? any tips certain foods or medications..;.. my high sex drive is ruining my life and affecting my career —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.101.130 (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Jung wrote, "Libido for me means psychic energy, which is equivalent to the intensity with which psychic contents are charged" (Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, ¶77n6). This definition addresses some of the issues raised in other comments, such as confusions or overemphases considering libido in sexual terms only, in the misprision of accusing asexuals of lacking libido, and mistakenly asserting that libido (understood sexually or not) must reduce with age. In fact, the kinds of confusions expressed are precisely anticipated by Jung's sense of libido and supplies a basis for his rejection of Freud's reductive, limited, and explanatorily less useful sense of the concept. It's worth bearing in mind: libido = "'psychic drive or energy, usually associated with sexual instinct,' 1892, carried over untranslated in English edition of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis"; and used in 1909 in A.A. Brill's translation of Freud's "Selected Papers on Hysteria" (Freud's use of the term led to its popularity); from L. libido "desire, lust," from libere "to be pleasing, to please," ultimately cognate with O.E. lufu (see love (n.))." (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=libido&searchmode=none) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talastra (talk • contribs) 05:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

"psyche energy" doesn't sound like a technical description to me. It sounds pretty much like pseudo science. Can it be measured in aura photography or what?

^what a stupid comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.75.68.22 (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I second the comment "what a stupid comment". Insofar as whatever anyone (by which I mean Freud, Adler, or Jung) meant by their usage of libido could, on all grounds, be dismissed as pseudo-science, but for the fact that Jung spends no shortage of paragraphs (in Psychological Types at the very least) making expressly clear how certain aspects (probably the bulk) of any psychological theorizing can only be hermeneutic. One judges then the value of the hermeneusis in a concept (like libido), rather than spending time quibbling needlessly over unprovable metaphysics. The fact that Jung uses libido to refer simply to intensities of psychic impressions or "energies" (as opposed to Freud who hypostatized the notion of libido so completely that he eventually felt compelled to hypothesize a death-instinct as well) suggests more where an imputation of pseudo-science might usefully be directed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talastra (talk • contribs) 05:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

loss

i am 15 and i am not as exited by sex as i used to be i am not severley obsee i do get deprsed esaley but i am not horney even whean i am happy i am just coreis as to whats worng if aneything and would like an explnation thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.112.185 (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

sorry, this is the wrong site for this sort of questions. may be marked as spam. Debangshu Mukherjee (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That was a very old thread, but to anyone who's experiencing the same, try reading up on psychological asexuality and hyposexuality, also sexual dysfunction (This is not a chitchat forum, though). EIN (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Freud + Libido

This section about Freud and what Freud thought about the libido needs to be seriously expanded... it could almost be four pages long... concepts such as egolibido, etc. -Abscissa 20:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

And it needs to be taken to a page about Freud! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.28.149 (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The two very different sections look ridiculously disproportional.--81.159.42.9 (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Jung and libido

I would give this its own article separate from this one, called something like- Libido(Jung), it's not much to do with or relevant to the everyday use of the word which the rest of this article discusses.Merkinsmum 19:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Libido and menstrual cycle

How is a woman's libido correlated with her menstrual cycle? I would like to know more about this. -Matt24 20:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You asked this a long time ago, but we women cycle through a whole cascade of hormonal events each month until menopause. Many of us have a time during that cycle when we become "horny," to use the technical term. But it varies so widely from one woman to the next that no general inferences can be drawn from this phenomenon. One person looks forward to the beginning of the cycle, another the middle, yet another the end. I know two women whose libidos are on high alert during their periods! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.28.149 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Increased Libido

This article talks about the causes of decreased libido, but does not discuss the causes of increased libido. Damage to the hypothalamus (part of the brain) is one cause, I believe. Someone should research it and add to the article, cause there's nothing on Wikipedia currently about it. -jojothepezgirl 02:26, 21 October 2007

Instincts have rationality

Compare a passing meeting to 30 years of marriage: 30 years of being the closest adult in your life. That is 1 day compared to 30 years which is about 1 : 10 000. No wonder that we react strongly to the possibility of getting a partner that would suit us! InsectIntelligence (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC) I totally agree as Im really suffering from very high sex drive which has damaging effects on my personal life, work, and health. So I wass hoping if there were a discussion about how to manage a high libido. I will apreciate your help if you have any hint please send to my e-mail dactara21@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.101.130 (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Glaring omission.

I am no expert on this subject but doesn't libido generally decrease with ageing? I would be surprised if the average octogenarian was quite as libidinous as the average 19 year old man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No. It fluctuates. Most typical change - womens' libido reaches its peak after 30's.Cosainsé (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A Rather Important Omission

I believe firmly that Schopenhauer's anticipation and influence on Freud's work should be included in this article, or his name at least put into the list of important figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.165.216 (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Libido

Contrary to popular teaching,libido, is no more than a rating scale used to measure levels of expectancy in physical and psycological drive and arousal. Hence, a high libido would indicate high levels of desire and expectancy versus a low libido indicating low or demensing levels of desire and expectancy. Simply put it is a balance of sexual ambition. -Hines 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.218.86 (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

THe statement that all asexuals have no libido is wrong (take a hike over to AVEn and see for yourself)asexuals have an undirected libido, because they have no sexual attraction (kind of like being hungry without knowing what you want to eat). But many do masturbate due to the libido demanding release of sexual tension. The term asexual refers not to libido but to sexual orientation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.69.60.92 (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV language: Libido impairment

This section is writen as if a low or no sex drive is a healt or psychological problem. Much like some straight people look at homosexuality as unnatural. This is not everyone's view.--Niele (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


Your point of view is the one that's not neutral. People with issues may want to look into possible reasons for their lack of libido, and your agenda shouldn't get in their way. - contraomnes

"People with issues" is POV. Who is to say that a high libido is what "should" be, and that not having one is an "issue"? Based on what? Why not consider high libido an "issue", and look for "reasons" for that? That would be biased too.

Low libido in a relationship is a huge problem (see doctor's letter to Science Tuesday in New York Times, 25 May 2010). If, for example, a young woman's sex drive has been driven underground by birth control pills (and I speak from experience here) and her partner lives with chronic frustration, you end up with two miserable people.

Incidentally, Freud was a pathfinder, but haven't we moved on? Other than the section on him, I found this a refreshingly agenda-free discussion of libido. Nature doesn't have a political agenda. Love it or leave it ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.28.149 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A low libido used to be regarded as saintly. I'm not saying that's true either. Fashions change. It's simply the flavour of the month (or century). Clearly if two people in a sexual relationship have a different level of libido, they have a problem. But it's the difference that's the problem, not the absolute level in either case. "hypoactive sexual drive disorder" is simply an attempt to medicalize a condition which is only a problem if people are made to believe it is. 87.79.160.50 (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is time to remove the NPOV tag. I think the objections have now been removed, or else the objectors should edit out the POV material.Ewawer (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Physiological Mechanism?

The article offers neither information, nor links to other pages, on how libido functions, biologically. This strikes as an important question that might be answered by people more knowledgeable than myself. Even if there is no known answer, it would be notable.0nullbinary0 (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Do you think the "Libido" and sexual arousal pages should be merged? Pass a Method talk 05:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

They are generally synonymous, so could quite easily be merged. Pass a Method talk 05:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Libido is more so about sex drive. A person can have a sex drive without being sexually aroused in that moment. This merge question could get more attention if posted at a related WikiProject. Flyer22 (talk) 09:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I was motivated to merge coz i was thinking of adding content and honestly could not decide where to put it between these 2 articles sinc they're so similar. Pass a Method talk 11:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
If the information you want to add has more to do with arousal, then add it to the Sexual arousal article. If it has more to do with sex drive, then add it to this article. The two terms significantly overlap, this is true, but they are not the same thing. Some redundancy could possibly be cut from the articles in a way that neither article will suffer and they will be more distinct. Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Should i put a template above to attract third opinions? Pass a Method talk 20:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be good. A WP:RfC. Hopefully, your listing isn't ignored...which can sometimes happen with RfCs and WP:Third opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

RFC

I'd like some third opinions on whether "Libido" and "Sexual arousal" should be merged. Pass a Method talk 23:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

One view is that they are generally synonymous; the other view is that while they significantly overlap, they are not the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I can't see any reason to merge them. They are two distinct concepts. Granted, there is some overlap, but not enough to justify a merge. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
IMO the overlap is very slight. I went and had a look at both articles and they looked pretty different to me. Before doing that I would have thought that something could be said for fusing them, but even a cursory look persuades me that it would be a rotten idea. They are sizable articles anyway. I have added each to the other's "see also" list. If anyone has trouble deciding which to put contributions into, that implies that the choice is not critical; choose by whim and add helpful cross-links. JonRichfield (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose merge. Desire and arousal aren't the same. Shakespeare spoke of alcohol as increasing desire but handicapping the performance. Some men with injuries may have a desperate craving for sex but be unable to get an erection. I'm glad that someone sees the connection between the topics, but keeping two separate articles will help the readers more than trying to mash both concepts together. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Factors affecting libido

By "affecting" do we mean "reducing"? In general, to affect something is to make it go up or down, or to change it in some other way. In global warming theory, carbon dioxide can affect atmospheric temperature or (controversially) ups and downs of temperature can cause ups and downs of CO2 concentration.

Think in terms of what affects appetite. Some things increase it (like skipping a meal). Other things reduce it, and not just eating. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Having sex regularly (ejaculation in males,say once or twice a day) and then suddenly stopping it(say for three or for days to a month) considerably increases your sex drive..Erections generally come faster and harder (than when you ejaculate regularly)..Orgasm is more intense.. This(time gap between ejaculations) is an important factor affecting aSexual desire..? Why does this happen..? Will it be appropriate to add this on physical factors affecting libido(As i already did) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed beerman (talk • contribs) 08:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there any difference between libido and sexual desire?

This article doesn't explain the difference between the two terms (if there is any difference), and even claims that libido refers to a person's "desire for sexual activity". Are they completely synonymous, or is there some subtle difference between the two? Jarble (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 asked on my talk page if I could add anything here, which I am happy to do. IMO, the two terms are essentially synonyms. However, both terms (and the concept they represent) are themselves pretty vague, each with histories of being wrapped up in various debates between different schools of thought preferring one over the other. (That is, people who had training in psychoanalysis are accustomed to saying "libido," people educated after the rise of 1970s feminism are more accustomed to "sexual desire," and people who don't like saying "sex" at all use "libido" as a euphemism.) Considered as a whole, however, the body of RSs don't have any real distinction between them. I hope that's a help.— James Cantor (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in, James. I was about to leave a note with a link at the Sexual desire talk page, where Jarble asked pretty much the same question as above, pointing to your comment here, but I saw that you beat me to it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, Jarble, James is a psychologist and sexologist (see his user page), so he brings with him an expert view to this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Should the pages be merged, then, or should they be kept separate? Jarble (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
You should start a merge discussion about it, instead of deciding to merge it because of what you or we (James and I) think. And if it is merged, the main article should clearly be Sexual desire because it is the clearer and more modern term. Flyer22 (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I think this was partially addressed in the previous discussion about merging libido with sexual arousal. As I understand it, libido is different from desire. As in - libido is an average level of sexual desire that person experiences. Desire sounds more situational.Cosainsé (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and it should definitely stay as "libido". People are much more likely to need an explanation on what libido is, rather than on what sexual desire is.Cosainsé (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Per the libido vs. sexual arousal discussion above, and what James stated about libido vs. sexual desire, there is more of a distinction between libido and sexual arousal than there is between libido and sexual desire. As also shown above, James stated that there is not any real distinction between libido and sexual desire; and, looking at the two Wikipedia articles on the topics, that appears to be the case. Except that libido is more of Freud topic than sexual desire is. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
That stated, you made a good point about distinguishing libido from sexual desire; I consider that a real distinction. Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Basic distortion and/or gross inaccuracy

Would have added this to thread above, but distinct from it, so starting a new one. Making libido precisely synonymous with the sex drive is a gross distortion of Freud's actual writings. Rather, "libido" is in a base sense, the life force itself manifested in all manner of biological urges, the most important of which, for Freud's studies, was the sexual urge. To flatly equate libido with the sex drive is to echo ignorant and uneducated understandings of things and doesn't advance the purpose of Wikipedia. The fact of this matter as I state it is easily sourceable. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, IP. It seems that your objection to the text comes down to the fact that libido is not solely a Freud topic. Other researchers, including researchers of today, use the term synonymously with sex drive or sexual desire; basically, they are not (fully) going by Freud's definition of libido. But when describing Freud's views on the topic, the text should obviously describe that accurately. Flyer22 (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
You seem to confirm my qualitative assessment by putting words in my mouth I didn't say. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't stating that you said that. Without trying to state that you feel any way in particular, I was explaining what "the problem" is -- the reason that the matter presents itself as a problem to you. And that reason is what I explained above -- the term not simply being a Freudian term and researchers using the term somewhat differently than Freud. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
You've conflated a general medical clinical and popular usage with the actual and easily sourceable general meaning. If you google it most of hits will be that usage of course but the general is still there and is the right one for the top level of this article. Libido is desire, urges as well as specifically being sexual, like America is a country and a supercontinent. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I have not conflated anything. If you believe anything is being conflated, then that is due to researchers using the term somewhat differently than Freud. Again, the term libido is not solely a Freud topic. Regular Google, or using Google Books or Google Scholar to research the term show that. And a psychologist/sexologist in the section immediately above this one is pretty clear about how the term libido has been used in his experience among researchers. Flyer22 (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
And what are you proposing for this article, to, for example, remove "or colloquially sex drive" from the lead? Sex drive redirects to this article and is mentioned/bolded in the first sentence because of WP:Alternative titles. Like I stated above, many sources use the term synonymously with sex drive or sexual desire. The difference here at Wikipedia is that sexual desire has a Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If your thrust were correct, then the right thing to do would be to merge this article with sexual desire. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are stating with regard to "[my] thrust." But the libido vs. sexual desire matter is obviously discussed in the section immediately above this one, and WP:Reliable sources show just how correct what is stated in that section is or is not. The editor who started that discussion has not started an official merge discussion, and so oh well. I have no big interest in that matter or this one. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
.n #4 in regards to the prior, related threads, sexual arousal has a different subject and is strongly physiologically oriented. If what you're pushing is correct then this and sexual desire should merge. If what I and others are saying, i.e that they are not synonymous, is correct then this should be recast and would be independent of the other two. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Since you decided to add on to your latest comment, I'll state this: With regard to comparing these matters to one another, sexual arousal and sexual desire are far more distinct than libido and sex drive or libido and sexual desire, and are not used interchangeably (not generally anyway), as many reliable sources show. Libido and sex drive are hardly ever distinguished, if ever. What I have stated above with regard to interchangeable matters is correct, and there's not a lot more for me to state to you on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Pressure of fluids affects it..why?

Having sex regularly (ejaculation in males,say once or twice a day) and then suddenly stopping it(say for three or for days to a month) considerably increases your sex drive..Erections generally come faster and harder (than when you ejaculate regularly)..Orgasm is more intense.. This(time gap between ejaculations) is an important factor affecting Sexual desire..? Why does this happen..? Will it be appropriate to add this on physical factors affecting libido.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed beerman (talk • contribs) 05:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hormone levels

Biologically, levels of hormones such as testosterone are believed to affect sex drive "be·lieve verb \bə-ˈlēv\

to accept or regard (something) as true
to accept the truth of what is said by (someone)
to have (a specified opinion)"

seemed obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:1a00:27d:7876:34d3:d823:775f (talk • contribs)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Libido. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Checked (t) Josve05a (c) 05:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

THE INSIDE OF MENTAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH OUR BRAIN

SOME TIME STRESS TAKE OVER EVERY THING IN OUR MIND AND WE FORGET OUR GOOD AND BEST IDEAS THAT CAN MAKE US TROUBLE FREE FOR SOME TIME BY THINKING ABOUT OUR GOOD MEMMORIES EVEN THEN WHEN WE HAVE NOTHING 

SO THE KEY POINT IS TO FOCUS ON ONE THING AND DO NOT THINK WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN JUST ENJOY THE MOMENT AND IF SOME THING WRONG COMES IN LIFE JUST SUFFER AND FORGET IT THAT IS THE BEST WAY TO GOT RID OF OUR UNREAL PROBLEMS THAT FILL OUR PRECIOUS PLACE IN OUR MIND AND HEART BEST OF LUCK

119.160.98.145 (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Libido. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Warshy re. graph deletion

The graph uses 'allosexual' the word does not appear in the article so the labels can't be interpreted. There is no scale. There is no indication that a scale would be helpful because the 'steps' appear equidistant from the last and next. How is it better than not being there at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.159.73 (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess you're right. I did not realize the word "allosexual" was not even in the article at all... Is it a word at all? WP apparently does not know it! I have no idea what it means. So you are right. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 20:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Wow, what a measured and graceful reply! You've cheered me up, thanks! 79.76.159.73 (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Accuracy of section "Effects of age"

I've heard it's a myth that men reach their prime in their mid-teens and women in their mid-30's. I wonder if there'd be a source that refutes the disputes about it. I also added a "why" which links to Wikipedia:Please clarify. Why doesn't Wikipedia give the evolutionary reason? WorldQuestioneer (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The intro to this article really needs some ace-friendly updating

Are there any reliable sources out there with aces on the staff that would reliably write about how libido is distinct from sex drive? Most asexual people have a libido, which is the physical part. They also lack a sex drive, the mental part. But of course we can't just cite the (highly accurate) ace pages because they're basically blogs. So there needs to be some discussion that finds some reliable sources to make the intro of this article actually accurate. /ramblingrant Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 18:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This is as problem I have with orthodox psychoanalysts, when we know we speak of libido as sexual by definition, it's no longer a matter of semantics (we can't say we mean drive when we say energy; nor conflate both concepts into "impulses"); And I am 99.5% sure everyone here editors don't take Freud's theories scientifically, or at least, qualify his theories as outdated/obsolete: mind you, idk if a majority, but many still regard him along Marx & Darwin, the 3 most important "genius" pre-modern figure. I personally don't, and actually dislike him as a person, very sketchy with colleagues and a biggot.
While many actually talk about sexual drive when talking libido, some even when death drive too, and this type of person is that who still carries aristotle's epistemology and system of classification, to talk about the mind with terms carried over by scholastics, and still majority among psychiatrist and neuropsychologists, clutching at the scheme of sensory, perception, impression, simple idea, quality, categories, ideation, reason, judgement, and other latin derived shallow concept that remains evidently contradictory when trying to answer ¿how much energy in the system? since it's spoken of this fluid basically, with excess here and too little there, with this charge or shape during this age and evolution. OTOH you can't dispose yourselves from having to account for this terms with gross empirical figures and experiments, the moment you posed there isn't res cogitans, or mind-body dualism, but it's only matter that matters (physicalism), mind is an emergent property like consciousness. And this is a too high standard i'm asking epistemologically, but one problem easy to see, and inescapable when the conclusions are "ok, this is genuinely a problem/question/paradox in psychology like that of dark matter in physics", because unlike physics, In psychology there are at least five full programmes of research for academics, with some cities having a majority of their scientists/thinkers grouping and doing their practice according to different theories and approaches, vs the Freudo-Aristotelian majority of neuroscientists and their biologization failed agenda that started in the 1920s.
Lets speak of this concept as historical, like that of nerves-nervous-nervousness-neurotism which is excised of any anato-biological correlate, thank god Megas alejandro (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 September 2020 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Qnessa.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 29 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Milest303. Peer reviewers: Dfee2, Moe.abuameer.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 January 2021 and 1 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Qnessa.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libido/Archive_1&oldid=1166347568"