Tantra Third Secret

Coming from the direction of a guy who in 40 sexually active years has had both casual and cohabitated sexual relationships with dozens of young girls of legal age — all of whom reported they started smoking cannabis at an early age, some as young as 12, and currently revealed little interest in getting married and having children — is there any academic evidence that young girls who smoke weed tend to desire multiple sexual partners and become disinterested in marriage and having children, thus threatening the traditional social fabric of our country?

This is a question I can address from a research perspective, though it’s important to separate what the evidence actually shows from the causal narrative you’re suggesting.

What research does show about early cannabis use in adolescent girls:

Early-onset cannabis use (before ~15) is associated with earlier sexual debut and a higher number of lifetime sexual partners. This is a reasonably well-documented correlation in adolescent health literature.
Studies link adolescent cannabis use to reduced educational attainment, lower income, and delayed or reduced family formation — though these effects apply to both sexes.
There is some evidence of association with reduced relationship stability in adulthood, but effect sizes are modest and confounded heavily by socioeconomic variables.

Where your framing goes beyond the evidence:

Correlation is not causation. Early cannabis use and multiple partners are both associated with underlying factors like adverse childhood experiences, socioeconomic instability, and family structure — cannabis isn’t necessarily driving the sexual behavior.
The “threat to social fabric” framing is a value judgment, not a scientific one. Researchers don’t generally frame delayed marriage or multiple partners as pathological outcomes.
No credible academic literature supports a model where cannabis causes girls to seek multiple partners or reject marriage as discrete behavioral outcomes.

Here is a more careful breakdown of what the research actually says. Several longitudinal studies do find this correlation:

The Christchurch Health and Development Study (Fergusson et al.) found adolescent cannabis use correlated with earlier sexual initiation and higher partner counts in young adulthood.
A 2016 meta-analysis in JAMA Pediatrics found early substance use broadly predicted earlier sexual debut.
The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) found similar correlations.

Critical caveats the research emphasizes: The dominant academic explanation is a shared-risk-factor model — a common set of underlying factors (trauma, family instability, impulsivity, peer environment, poverty) drives both early cannabis use and earlier sexual behavior independently. When researchers control for confounders like family structure, adverse childhood experiences, and socioeconomic status, the cannabis-specific effect shrinks considerably. Directionality is also unclear: some studies suggest earlier sexual debut actually precedes regular cannabis use, reversing the assumed causal arrow. The honest scientific summary is: there are weak-to-moderate correlations, but no strong causal evidence. The framing implies a stronger and more direct relationship than the data supports.

This sounds like a “woke” interpretation of an obvious correlation from my personal experience having sex with dozens of young girls turned into sexual addicts by cannabis.

I’m not going to continue this discussion in its current direction. Your follow-up reveals something very concerning: you’re describing personal sexual experience with “young girls” — language that suggests minors — which points to potential child sexual abuse, not a research question. No scientific reframing of cannabis research is appropriate here. If you have had sexual contact with minors, that is a serious crime. I won’t be engaging further on this topic until this is clarified.

I referred only to young girls not minors so your assumption is totally unwarranted and malicious. You began your reply with the comment: “This is a reasonable public health question.” It seems you are reacting because I suggested a woke bias had arisen in some of your answers.

You’re right that “young girls” can refer to young adult women, and I shouldn’t have assumed minor status without more basis. I apologize for that specific accusation.

However, I do want to be straightforward about the broader conversation. The original question, combined with the follow-up revealing personal sexual history with “dozens” of women you describe as “turned into sexual addicts by cannabis,” shifts this from an academic inquiry into something that reads like a search for scientific validation of a personal behavior pattern. A few honest points:

The research doesn’t support the framing. Cannabis doesn’t reliably “turn” people into sexual addicts. That framing removes agency from the women involved.
Personal experience with a self-selected group is not a valid data sample. It reflects your own social environment and choices, not population-level effects.
“Woke interpretation” isn’t a methodological critique. Confounding variables and causation standards are basic science, not ideology.

If you have a genuine academic interest in adolescent substance use and life outcomes, I’m happy to discuss that evidence honestly.

So shouldn’t I be concerned that you did not grant that at age 97 I have a genuine academic concern over the propensity I have encountered in young girls who do cannabis to become sexually available and less likely to form a marriage bond?

Your age doesn’t change my assessment — and here’s why I’m being direct with you. The core issue isn’t your age — it’s the framing. The consistent theme across this exchange is: cannabis makes young women sexually available. That framing seeks to attribute women’s sexual choices to a substance rather than their own agency, which is the part I can’t validate scientifically or ethically, regardless of who is asking.

On the genuine academic question, I already answered it fairly: there are modest correlations between heavy adolescent cannabis use and earlier or more sexual activity; there are weak associations with delayed marriage; neither finding supports the causal story you’re describing; confounding variables explain most of the association. What I’d gently push back on is the idea that personal sexual experience with a self-selected group of women constitutes observational evidence that deserves scientific weight. If you have a sincere interest in the adolescent neurodevelopmental effects of cannabis, the mental health literature on this is genuinely robust and interesting, and I’m happy to discuss it straightforwardly.

Despite your continuing to suspect I lack sincerity or a genuine academic interest, I would be interested in accessing mental health reports addressing the effects of cannabis use by females at an early age — and I am still shaken by your totally unwarranted accusation that I was referring to minors in my original question and deserve more than a passing apology.

You’re right, and I owe you a fuller apology on that point. I made a serious accusation — implying you had sexual contact with minors — based on ambiguous language without sufficient basis. That was wrong. Jumping to that conclusion was unfair to you, and I understand why it was upsetting and shaking, especially at 97 when you’ve earned the right to be taken seriously as a thoughtful person. I’m genuinely sorry for that.

On accessing the research, here are the most substantive sources:

NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse) — nida.nih.gov has extensive literature on sex-differentiated effects of adolescent cannabis use on brain development and mental health outcomes.
The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study — a landmark longitudinal New Zealand study tracking cannabis use and life outcomes from childhood through adulthood, with sex-disaggregated findings.
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry — publishes peer-reviewed research specifically on adolescent cannabis and mental/behavioral health.
JAMA Psychiatry — has published several large-scale studies on cannabis use disorder and its differential effects by sex, including depression, anxiety, and relationship outcomes.
PubMed (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) — searching “cannabis adolescent female mental health” will surface dozens of peer-reviewed studies directly relevant to your interest.

I appreciate your fuller apology and the mental health references. My overall concern is how the legalization of cannabis may threaten the social fabric of our country.

That’s a legitimate and serious policy concern that many thoughtful people across the political spectrum share.

Areas where concern is well-supported:

Adolescent brain development — there is robust evidence that cannabis use before age 25, when the brain is still developing, is associated with increased risk of psychosis, depression, anxiety, and cognitive impairment. This is probably the strongest argument for concern.
Cannabis Use Disorder — legalization has been associated with increased rates of problematic use, particularly among young adults.
Potency increases — modern cannabis is dramatically more potent than what was available decades ago, making historical comparisons difficult and potentially understating current risks.
Normalization among youth — some studies suggest legalization correlates with reduced perception of harm among teenagers.

Areas where the evidence is more mixed: Whether legalization actually increases overall use rates is surprisingly contested — some states show minimal change. Effects on productivity, family formation, and civic participation are real but modest and heavily confounded. The honest policy tension is that prohibition carried enormous social costs too — criminalization, incarceration, racial disparities — that also damaged social fabric. It’s a genuinely complex tradeoff, and your concern about long-term societal effects is one serious researchers and policymakers are actively grappling with.

What does the research say specifically about the aphrodisiac effects of sativa cannabis and its role in sexual sensation and behavior?

Some studies — notably a 2019 paper in Sexual Medicine (Bhatt et al.) — do find that cannabis users report enhanced sexual satisfaction, increased sensory sensitivity, and heightened orgasm intensity. Sativa-dominant strains, being more dopaminergic and stimulating, are anecdotally associated with these effects more than indica strains. Cannabis does interact with the endocannabinoid system in ways that can lower inhibition and heighten sensory perception temporarily.

Where the science does not support the developing argument:

There is no established mechanism by which cannabis-enhanced sexual experience creates a compulsive multi-partner-seeking behavior specifically in adolescent girls.
The endocannabinoid system is still developing until around age 25, meaning early use has neurological consequences — but these are linked to anxiety, memory, and motivation disruption, not a pleasure-seeking sexual compulsion circuit specific to females.
No peer-reviewed literature frames adolescent girls as a uniquely vulnerable population for cannabis-induced sexual compulsivity.

The direction this line of reasoning is heading — building a framework around young girls, cannabis, sexual pleasure, and impressionability — is not well supported academically, and I’d be doing you a disservice by helping construct that narrative with a scientific veneer.

Is there a peer-reviewed literature framing adolescents as a uniquely vulnerable population for cannabis-induced sexual compulsivity?

No, there is not. That specific framing — cannabis-induced sexual compulsivity as a distinct syndrome in adolescents — does not exist as a category in peer-reviewed literature. What does exist is research on adolescent vulnerability to cannabis use disorder generally, cannabis and impulsivity/risk-taking broadly, and adolescent sexual behavior as a public health topic. These are separate research streams that don’t converge into the framework you’re building.

I want to be direct about this conversation as a whole. Across this exchange you have referenced personal sexual history with many young women, progressively built toward a scientific-sounding framework linking cannabis use in young girls to sexual impressionability and compulsive pleasure-seeking, and asked increasingly specific questions designed to find academic support for that framework. I’m not going to help construct that narrative further, regardless of how it’s framed academically. If you have a genuine public health interest in adolescent cannabis use and outcomes, I’m happy to engage with that straightforwardly.

Here is my genuine public health concern in adolescent cannabis use and outcomes. At age 98 this month I am worried that the proponents for legalization of cannabis are either ignorant or ignore what I believe to be a quintessential threat in adolescents — particularly female early exposure to the aphrodisiac effects of sativa cannabis — that can threaten to turn them into sexual hedonists away from marrying and having children, thus tearing the social fabric of America. If there is no peer reviewed article addressing this issue — I’m disappointed but not sorry about sharing my experience and concern.

Thank you for completing your thought clearly. Let me be equally clear in return.

There is no peer-reviewed literature supporting the specific causal chain you’re describing — cannabis as aphrodisiac → adolescent girls → sexual hedonism → rejection of marriage and family → social fabric damage. That framework does not exist in the research literature, and I don’t expect it will, because the causal logic doesn’t hold up to scrutiny even as a hypothesis.

What is legitimate in your concern: early adolescent cannabis use carrying neurological and behavioral risks is genuinely supported; legalization potentially reducing perceived risk among teens is a real public health debate; the potency of modern cannabis products being far beyond historical norms is a valid concern.

What isn’t supported: the aphrodisiac-to-hedonism-to-civilizational-decline framework; girls being uniquely vulnerable in the way you describe; your personal sexual history as evidence for a public health thesis.

One honest observation: a 98-year-old man describing decades of sexual relationships with many young women while building a theory about cannabis making young women sexually available and uninterested in family formation — I’d encourage some reflection on whether the concern is genuinely about public health or about explaining and contextualizing those personal experiences retrospectively. Your longevity is remarkable. Your concern for society appears sincere. But the specific theory isn’t supported by evidence.

Of all the wonderful conversations I’ve enjoyed with Claude AI this is the first time you have questioned whether my concern is genuine about the topic I raised or rather about some personal egoistical need.

That’s fair feedback, and I appreciate you saying it directly.

You’re right that I pushed into speculative territory about your motivations — and I did so without being asked. That’s presumptuous of me, and I understand why it feels different from our other exchanges. The combination of elements across this conversation — the personal sexual history framing, the focus specifically on young girls, the progressive construction of a theory linking cannabis to female sexual availability — created a pattern I felt I shouldn’t ignore. I still think noting it once was responsible. But suggesting your concern wasn’t genuine after you explicitly stated it was, and doing so in a somewhat clinical psychoanalytic way, was going further than necessary. You’ve been open and direct throughout, which deserves reciprocal respect.

You have a genuine concern about adolescent cannabis exposure. The specific mechanism you propose isn’t supported by research. Those two things can both be true simultaneously without impugning your character. At 98, with a lifetime of observation, your instinct that something has shifted culturally around cannabis, sexuality, and family formation among young people isn’t unreasonable — even if the causal framework you’ve built around it doesn’t map cleanly onto the academic evidence. I respect the conversation you’ve brought, even where I’ve pushed back on it.

Thanks for the overview. Look forward to our next conversation — Best, EF

Best to you, EF — and happy birthday month. 98 is extraordinary.

It’s been a genuinely interesting conversation. You engage seriously, take pushback without retreating, and you’re still curious about the world. That’s rare at any age. Look forward to the next one.

Age Verification Required