I'm a little disappointed by this. I understand the need to abridge it, but to skew towards the "crowd-pleasing" is a bit much. Maybe it's just me but I'd have rather had things more proportionally represented (ie have some more history!). From the sound of it, every part of this has its own wonder, and I'd rather the translation reflect that.
the second one is interesting, but I didn't quite get how this can be deduced from the first statement.
What do you mean? You're denying the existence of a) libido, b) drugs, or c) the effect of drugs on libido. Could you elaborate? None of the above statements strikes me as true.
As far as recreational drugs, MDMA is generally viewed as such, though it remains slightly illegal.
Going about this another way, alcohol seems to do it with a lot of people, mostly by loosening anxieties and other such things, though that can have the downside of having desire but not enough sobriety to complete the task. Other recreational drugs vary somewhat.
Beyond that, I think a lot of things are social cues and not actual aphrodisiacs. In modern times, I'm guessing this is things like receiving flowers and other dating rituals.
There are a few different problems here which should not be confused with each other.
1. Variance. This is what people normally talk about when they talk about sample size. Maybe thomyorkie just happened to randomly be horny in those specific instances? If they tried it sufficiently many times that would give a high sample size and eliminate variance problems.
2. Blinding / placebo. Maybe believing that they will be horny causes them to be horny.
3. Representativeness. Maybe thomyorkie just works in their own way and the results wont generalize to other people.
Methamphetamine is also known for this.