I have no knowledge about the phenomenon she describes, but I wonder whether the author is a victim and perpetrator of mythmaking.

Sexual desire is an essential human need, and it sounds suspicous when someone claims that it just vanishes in a group of young men, be it a real or constructed group. Is it possible that large parts of the japanese culture (supposedly, as per author) requiring competetiveness, meat eating, early marriage etc. just throws in lack of libido, in an attack of the deviant group's manlihood? Obviously, getting married and/or having children later in life does not suggest at all a lack in libido or sexual activity, maybe it indicates even the exact opposite. As long as there is no better data (what is cited in the article are at best anecdotal claims), there is good reason to doubt that many japanese men all of a sudden turn asexual.

No reason to doubt! I can confirm that Japan is full of feminized, progressive, pussified wimps! Warrior/hunter men hunt for sex and meat. Without that desire, you get your common Metrosexual liberal. Progressives are creating a world full of Japanese grass boys and mascara wearing cry babies.

The claim that the "grass-eating men" are uniformly disinterested in sex sounds bogus to me as well. Even if they do prefer to play video games to dating women, it doesn't mean that they're not interested in having sex with them. The lion's share of young men, gay or straight, have high libidos as a natural part of human development. Biology did not change suddenly in Japan as a reaction to the old macho culture, and eating vegetables does not kill your libido. Just because some Japanese columnists say so, doesn't make it so.

I can understand that men in Japan, like men in the US and Europe, are waiting longer to marry and have children. That's having a negative effect on the population everywhere there is not a net influx of immigrants. But that doesn't mean people are having less sex.

Don’t you read Margret Mead? Culture overrides biology. Feminists love Mead, except when leftwing dogma is threatened.

The feminized wimp culture has sucked sexual desire form he grass eating boys.

I see no problem in this whole scenario. The grass eating boys seem like nice enough people. The carnivorous girls sound like fun. Does all this nonsense really bother anyone? Are they having sex? Gosh, I don't care who is having sex. Are they getting drunk and buying expensive cars? Again, I don't care.

Hey, IM, did your father accept a monthly Social Security check? Will you?

What a family of pussified wimps.

Ever driven on the interstate? Spent any time where electricity was provided by big hydroelectric dams? Hell, ever used an electric appliance, well, ever? Went to a public school?

Pussy.

How often do you "hunt for sex and meat" and how often do you just go to Safeway?

Look, private industry alone didn't put together the physical and social infrastructure that sustains modern life, and "liberal" ideas have been an essential part of the mix since at least the time of the railroads. If you're going to go to such brain-dead, knee-jerk cartoonish extremes then you might as well just move to Somalia. -There's- where you'll find some real honest-to-God carnivorous men, everyone a rugged individual not expecting any help from anyone else. -

And there you go, one idiotic straw-man argument answered with another.

US Joint Economic Commission: <link> -Government serves many useful functions, including some economic ones. The findings here support the view that the growth of government in newly emerging nations and economies tends to increase output. Presumably this reflects the reduction in transactions' costs and the improved environment for investment associated with a rule of law and enforceable property rights. At the same time, in modern times relative American federal government spending has expanded rapidly, reflecting sharp increases in transfer payments. The evidence suggests that large transfer payments in particular have negative consequences for growth. The results for the federal government are confirmed for state and local governments and several other countries. The findings suggest that a federal budget strategy of constraining spending growth below output growth, with particular attention paid to constraining transfer payments, would have positive effects on economic growth.

Economic Freedom Indexes: <link> "<link> The indices of economic freedom attempt to measure (free market) economic freedom, and empirical studies based on these rankings have found them to be correlated with higher living standards, economic growth, income equality, less corruption and less political violence. Public spending" or "Government size" or taxation" is different than "economic freedom." The curve shows that governments mostly tax, redistribute and spend themselves into economic destruction - even in nations with high degrees of economic freedom. The curve proves taxation, redistribution, and government size hinders economic growth in most Western nations because most nations tax their populations too much for optimal tax rates. The study tries to find the optimal tax rate which generates the most tax revenues. I would prefer to have less revenues and smaller government over the optimal rate.

Very recommended links:

1. 5% growth is no utopia. Causes of Growth differentials in europe. (Abstract WFA Study)
2. Causes of Growth Differentials in Europe: (Full Report of the WFA Study):
3. The myth of the Scandinavian Model. (The Brussels Journal)
4. Europe's Ailing Social Model: Fairy-Tale & Facts
5. Can we still avoid Inflation ( Friedrich A. Hayek on inflationary policies )
6. The Swedish model: Admire the best, forget the rest (The Economist)
7. Decay and the welfare state, Time to Reevaluate the European Social Model. Has the time come? (FT)
8. Dr Robert A. Mundell's Nobel Prize Lecture: "A Reconsideration of the 20th Century" claiming that Supply Side Economics leads to growth and price stability.
9. THE PATH TO SUSTAINABLE GROWTH - Lessons From 20 Years Growth Differentials In Europe.

More Research on Europe:

1. Is Europe Doomed to Continued Economic Stagnation? <link> Europe suffers from particular weaknesses. 2007 Index of Economic Freedom says, "Europe suffers from the second-worst regional score in labor freedom and is dead last in fiscal free­dom from government.… [S]trong state sectors and rigid labor markets have already prompted significant social turmoil, not least in France."
2. Jean-Claude Trichet, "The Need for Structural Reforms in Europe," lecture to the Lisbon Council, June 4, 2007, at www.ecb.eu/press/key/date/2007­­­/html/sp070604.en.html#fnid2­­ (June 7, 2007).
3. OpenEurope, "ICM Survey of Chief Executives for Open Europe," at www.openeurope.org.uk/research­­­/businesspres.pdf
4. "The Road to Hell Was Paved with Good Intentions," The European Journal, March/April 2006, pp. 19–21, at <link>
5. Sean Dorgan, "How Ireland Became the Celtic Tiger," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1945, June 23, 2006, at <link>.

As for further evidence that the New Deal failed see these articles:

1. FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
   Why the New Deal Failed
2. <link>
3. FDR's programs didn't succeed in pushing unemployment below 20 percent.
4. New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America."
5. Cato's Jim Powell makes the case against the New Deal.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.…I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises….I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot!" - Henry Morgenthau Jr. (May 9, 1939,) -- pal, lunch companion and loyal secretary of the Treasury to President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

"I have never seen an economist lay out a case that the New Deal succeeded." – (<link>) Library of Economics

To the OP:

Mayby they just masturbate?

Cheaper, faster, easier, no risk of disease, no chance of pregnancy, no rejection, no performance anxiety, and no emotional/relationship overhead.

For a socially withdrawn loner, it's the easy way to deal with their urges. Japan also has a *massive* porn market with tons of variety to fit almost any desire you can think of (which is frightening) so I'd bet a lot of them "take matters into their own hands".

IM, I have no idea what this has to do with the original topic ... but since you are at it, with putting up links to "research" from the heritage foundation and 2006 articles describing Ireland as "Celtic Tiger" after we know how Ireland is doing now, you expose yourself to well deserved ridicule.

Maybe you are reading too much. Go and visit European countries/regions that are, GDP wise, in the same league as the US (Germany, Austria, Northern Europe, Northern Italy). Not saying that everything is perfect there, but it prevents you from cooking in libertarian propaganda.

@ widowson: Agree, that's possible (although against common wisdom which is "can't beat the real thing"), but as long as we don't have any empirical evidence (e.g. a scientific poll of sexual behavior), this is pure speculation.

Economic slowdown does not prove the Govern intrusionists right, because socialist states fare worse in economic slowdowns and recover slower.

I gave links that have been cited by dozens of Nobel Prize winning economists, and tens of thousands of researchers.

Your ideology is based on feelings. My ideology is based on empirical research, based on the preponderance of the evidence. Show me research to the contrary. There is none.

There is no empirical evidence supporting Keynesian economics. NONE!

Today, American leftists are followers of the New Keynesian populist Obama. Where Marx wanted total socialism, Obama and Keynes want "socialization of demand," and "a somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment." See the following mainstream centrist sources, which conclude that Keynesian economics is a consensus failed idea:

Per The New World Encyclopedia: <link>; "Although many of his ideas did not stand the test of time, due to their popularity and revolutionary nature Keynes is still considered one of the founders of modern theoretical macroeconomics. …(However,) Keynesian economics as Keynes envisioned it no longer holds sway…"…"Overall, the inability of modern market socialists to answer all these arguments casts serious doubt on the practical workability of market socialism, or any other form of socialist economics based on central planning, in any possible fashion and in any country."

Per The Forbes Investopedia: <link> "Despite these undesirable consequences, Keynes' work is useful. It helps strengthen the free market theory by opposition, as we can see in the work of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School economists that followed Keynes. …. The Keynesian formulation forced free market economics to become a more comprehensive theory, and the persistent and popular echoes of Keynesian thinking in every economic crisis caused free market economics to develop in response."
Friedman once said, "We are all Keynesians now; in another, no one is a Keynesian any longer. We all use the Keynesian language and apparatus; none of us any longer accepts the initial Keynesian conclusions."

Business Leaders concluded New Deal Failed. <link> Public opinion polls in March and May 1939: Sixty-five percent of executives surveyed thought that the Roosevelt administration policies had so affected business confidence that the recovery had been seriously held back.

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.…I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises….I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot!" - Henry Morgenthau Jr. (May 9, 1939,) -- pal, lunch companion and loyal secretary of the Treasury to President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

"I have never seen an economist lay out a case that the New Deal succeeded." – (<link>) Library of Economics

As for further evidence that the New Deal failed see these articles:

1. FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
   Why the New Deal Failed
2. <link>
3. FDR's programs didn't succeed in pushing unemployment below 20 percent.
4. New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America."
5. Cato's Jim Powell makes the case against the New Deal.

Rise up and oppose Obama before he destroys the global economy! Obama’s pimp-daddy spending habits will not only destroy the US economy but will harm the global economy as nearly every national treasury holds US securities.

You socialist are even more ignorant than you are capable of understanding, you bran dead rocks!

As I said, I would recommend Northern Italy for you, and if the wine doesn't do it, maybe lorazepam or diazepam would help ... people who fervently feel that they "know the truth" while at least a third if not the majority of economists disagrees need to chill out.

I challenge all Obama supporters. Support his Keynesian economics plan with empirical research! There is none.

I offered research. You have none. I am rational. You are irrational. Reason, logic and fact all trump leftwing feelings.

Obama will fail. It is a mathematical and logical impossibility that raising taxes on Corporations, small businesses (LLCs that make more than $250K), the wealthy, energy and capital gains will not increase unemployment rates and decrease economic growth –all while spending us into record astronomical debt through a false Keynesian perpetual motion machine.

The ignorant stupid child-like unthinking masses have been fooled by the Metrosexual Multicultural Marxist Messiah, but the progressive-caused economic destruction will bludgeon the mindless sheep people (Obama supporters) into reaccepting free markets once again. Most ignoramuses will eventually learn when clubbed in the face by the horror that economic redistribution cuases. However, dogmatic liberals will remain, like cockroaches, and they must be continually stepped on and exposed to the light of rational thought and reason. Let progressive cockroaches return to hiding in the dark cracks, where they belong…

Complex thinkers know that are some absolute truths. Non-complex progressive feelers believe everything is relative and should, therefore, reach a moderate equilibrium. However, socialism is a cancer, and beyond the minimal inoculation needed, the host will eventually succumb to black-diseased Government oppression.

Societies do not need moderate amounts of rat poison, child molestation or socialism cancer. Societies thrive when individuals are guaranteed unalienable personal liberties, which are then coupled with economic freedom. Free people, free markets and free minds are symbiotically healthy.

Government caused the Great Depression (<link>): I prefer the Austrian and Chicago schools’ explanations: Even Keynes feels the cause was nonintervention, not capitalism.

· Friedman, Bernanke, Greenspan and others think the Fed’s inappropriate monetary tightening caused the depression. “Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve… we did it. We're very sorry." – Fed Chair, Bernanke

· Of course, the Chicago and Austrian schools of economics, and the neoclassical economists from institutes such as Harvard and Oxford (including many Nobel Prize winners), and both the current and former chairmen of the Federal Reserve all contend that Roosevelt actually prolonged the economic devastation during the great Depression with his Keynesian policies. <link>

· Franklin D. Roosevelt primarily blamed the excesses of big business for causing an unstable bubble-like economy. Democrats believed the problem was that business had too much money, and the New Deal was intended as a remedy, by empowering labor unions and farmers and by raising taxes on corporate profits. Research proved Roosevelt was wrong about both the cause and cure. Read research from Hayek, Friedman, Bernanke and many others.

· According to Murray Rothbard, government intervention delayed the market’s adjustment and made the road to complete recovery more difficult.

· Recent work from a neoclassical perspective focuses on the decline in productivity which caused the initial decline in output and a prolonged recovery due to government policies. These studies were collected in Kehoe and Prescott 2007.

· Of course Obama ignorantly promises to enact similar policies that had prolonged the depression

"However, socialism is a cancer, and beyond the minimal inoculation needed..."

IM:

Stalin-lover!