The motivations for sex and the consequences

[Morphic Tide]

One main thing I've thought about, given the information I've seen, is basically trying to flip the pattern most Feminists end up in by pointing it out to them: Find a man during college, start up a family in your 20s, then when the kids can be reasonably left at home/school most of the day without parental supervision, you can get started on a career.

Sure, you're stuck playing a considerable degree of catch-up, but that's something possible to pull off, whereas having children in your 40s after being in the job market for 15+ years is basically a pipe dream to make work for a woman, especially with how having a decent career forces a far higher bar for what can be considered a reasonable husband.

 

[ShieldWife]

I do not know what this path will be when we got shit like onlyfans, twitch and porn sites but when sex dolls are slowly accepted we're going to go another way when simps can afford sex dolls. The day artifical wombs become real is when marriages we know today truly change.

One thing'd be for sure, feminists will try to ban and outlaw that kind of technology.

When who are only useful to the world because of their sexuality and reproductive organs would certainly find it dismaying when their monopoly over those things is ended

I wonder what kind of society would form from that point. The only story that even remotely alluded to that was Armitage III, and that focussed on action mostly. Maybe something like the ancient greeks, but with blatant favoritism shown towards female automatons? Would be a weird turnaround.

There’s been a lot of talk about Dune lately with the movie coming out, and that setting has all sorts of crazy powerful female organizations in it, though one group always stood out to me who aren’t like that - the Tleilaxu.

They are masters of biology, can create obedient clones in vats, and they’re all men. The most misogynistic group in the universe it seems. Why is that?

Well, maybe when the men can just grow a bunch of obedient shape changing Face Dancers to serve their every desire and new Tleilaxu men can be grown in vats too, what do they need with women after that?

Women are sovereign human beings like the rest of us. To deny them rights that are guaranteed to men is hardly fair, but only a fool would deny that feminism has taken us all for a ride. The problem is, once again, the naive liberals of yesteryear let the communists into the institutions. Thus the Marxists have brainwashed and turned many women into a weapon against the society they seek to overthrow: they have weaponised the female sex right under our noses (It should be noted, however, very many women are most certainly not onboard with this).

Get them out of the goddamn schools, and a lot of these problems would be gone within two generations.

Women are sentient beings with rights, that is correct. But what is and isn’t a right? Does a woman have a right to work at a business even if the employer doesn’t want to hire her? Does she have the right the the earnings of a husband she divorces? Is voting even a right? Most people today think so but the Founding Fathers of the USA didn’t. Why is it a fundamental human right to be able to vote yourself other people’s money?

Women have ridiculous levels of power in Western society. We are mad with power and it’s one of the big things damaging Western civilization. Women have always had power in society, softer and less overt power than men, but still power nonetheless along with many advantages.

Feminists have never sought equality. Feminists have never wanted to reduce the traditional powers of women, in fact they wanted to strengthen it. One of the major goals of feminism has been to reduce or eliminate the negative consequences that women have traditionally suffered from abusing female power. Easy divorce, alimony, child support payments, welfare, legal abortion, opposition to “slut shaming,“ and numerous other legal or societal changes have allowed women to abuse our traditional powers with impunity while simultaneously demanding all of the traditional male privileges even when they were unearned.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Women are sentient beings with rights, that is correct. But what is and isn’t a right? Does a woman have a right to work at a business even if the employer doesn’t want to hire her? Does she have the right the the earnings of a husband she divorces? Is voting even a right? Most people today think so but the Founding Fathers of the USA didn’t. Why is it a fundamental human right to be able to vote yourself other people’s money?

Women have ridiculous levels of power in Western society. We are mad with power and it’s one of the big things damaging Western civilization. Women have always had power in society, softer and less overt power than men, but still power nonetheless along with many advantages.

Feminists have never sought equality. Feminists have never wanted to reduce the traditional powers of women, in fact they wanted to strengthen it. One of the major goals of feminism has been to reduce or eliminate the negative consequences that women have traditionally suffered from abusing female power. Easy divorce, alimony, child support payments, welfare, legal abortion, opposition to “slut shaming,“ and numerous other legal or societal changes have allowed women to abuse our traditional powers with impunity while simultaneously demanding all of the traditional male privileges even when they were unearned.

We seem to be on the same page, aside from the fact that I refuse to lump "women", as in "half the human race", in with the madness of feminism. That is reactionary nonsense that could see a lot of people who haven't bought into this nonsense (you yourself among them) get punished for the moral failings of their peers. The 19th amendment should not be scrapped, unless you want to restrict the franchise wholesale so it's no longer universally available to men as well. In my country, Labour, one of the most disastrous parties in our history, was swept to prominence by working class men who'd fallen for the song of socialism. Feminism is an offshoot of our true foe, which is socialism. That must not be forgotten, and any can fall under its spell.

However, feminism must be brought to a halt, that much is clear. It is a Female Supremacy movement built upon Marxian oppression obsession that is brainwashing generation after generation of youngsters. But we should be highly wary of overreacting to a problem that has been created and driven by a rather small group of people. You can clear up all the equality before the law ruining privileges feminism has awarded (and you should), but that will solve nothing in the long term. Get feminism, and Marxism in general, out of the schools. Do that, and the beast is mortally wounded, doomed to wander around impotently for a few decades before it finally drops dead. Then and only then can our societies truly begin to heal.

 

[Geon]

I'mma jump around here some because folks have brought up some interesting points I wanna comment on...

I do not know what this path will be when we got shit like onlyfans, twitch and porn sites but when sex dolls are slowly accepted we're going to go another way when simps can afford sex dolls. The day artifical wombs become real is when marriages we know today truly change.

One thing'd be for sure, feminists will try to ban and outlaw that kind of technology.

You know, this seems to come up fairly often in the "Manosphere" and I think folks are really missing some key things. I don't really buy this notion that "artificial wombs" will "free" men or stand as some sort of threat to "gynocracy" or something.

On one hand, I think folks seriously underestimate how difficult creating something like that would be. How would you do it? Some sort of uterine substrate grown out of pluripotent stems cells or something? How would such a thing provide the complex nutritional and hormonal blend necessary for healthy fetal development? I don't think you can just replicate those complex biological structures and processes outside of the female body.

Either way, let's assume that one could create such a thing "artificially." How much does it really change? You'd still require a donated female gamete, at the very least. Thus, women still maintain a level of control over the whole process. You still need that other half to produce viable offspring. Whether it develops in an artificial womb or not.

Frankly, I don't see an "artificial womb" changing much in regards to the "balance of power" between the sexes. If anything, it's liable to be more beneficial to women. It allows them to have children without bearing the hefty biological costs of carrying and giving birth to offspring. That seems right up modern feminism's "Empowered Women" alley, if you ask me.

long story short I'm not sure if honestly they would help, but it's at least become clear that despite the for all the talk about the free love revolution America only seems to embrace sex so long as it's beneficial to Hollywood and elites. Once it no longer benefits them, then anyone who expresses open sexuality is considered perverted at best, or a rapist if you happen to be a man. meanwhile stuff like Cuties is not only considered AOK it's considered empowering.

At least when sex was considered evil outside of making new converts for the church it was at least a consistent view even if it made no since outside of a religion.

Hmm, are we talking about perceptions of sex and sexuality in modern western culture or arranged marriages and the impact of such an "institution" on said perceptions?

Because I'll agree with you that sexuality is variably acceptable - though its not really tied to what benefits "the elites." If you're an attractive man, it's cool, even desirable. If you're not, you're a creep. I think the same can even be said for women, to some degree. The "Cuties" thing, well, that's a whole 'nother can o' worms. Don't know enough to really comment on it (kind of don't want to know), but I imagine it's just another lever in the quest to normalize the aberrant and further erode sexual and societal "norms."

Regarding arranged marriages, though. I'd say that it wouldn't help things. Way I see it, the horse has sort of left the barn and closing the door won't do much good at this point. Today, people largely have unlimited choice in who they wish to partner with (frivolously or otherwise) and I don't think you're going to turn that back around and get people to support (or even accept) arranged marriages or the like. Short of some sort of unfathomable societal collapse, I just don't see it really being feasible.

Now, you might point to non-western cultures and societies that still practice such things and, to that, I'd say one should only look at the men who literally castrate themselves and the women who flee to their countries to escape said arrangements. Those are fairly extreme examples, but I think they illustrate the lengths people will go to to avoid being forced into a life with someone they, at best, don't have feelings for and, at worst, will be miserable with.

That's all leaving aside my own personal feelings on the matter which probably aren't terribly relevant to an objective looks at things.

One main thing I've thought about, given the information I've seen, is basically trying to flip the pattern most Feminists end up in by pointing it out to them: Find a man during college, start up a family in your 20s, then when the kids can be reasonably left at home/school most of the day without parental supervision, you can get started on a career.

Sure, you're stuck playing a considerable degree of catch-up, but that's something possible to pull off, whereas having children in your 40s after being in the job market for 15+ years is basically a pipe dream to make work for a woman, especially with how having a decent career forces a far higher bar for what can be considered a reasonable husband.

I've heard a lot of different thoughts regarding how to raise a family in our modern age. Your solution sounds viable, though there's one I almost never hear mentioned and it's, more or less, how my sister and I were raised: With Inter-Generation Support.

My maternal grandparents lived less than five minutes from my folks' house and, while both of my parents worked full-time, my grandparents were there for us from the start. My folks were in their early-to-mid 30's when my sister and I were born and my grandparents were comfortably retired with free time to spare. They took great pride in filling in where my folks could not. They took us to school, picked us up in the afternoon, fed us, played with us and (when necessary) disciplined us. They were a key part of our childhood and, by the time they got older and weren't able to be around as much, we were in our teens and largely self-sufficient.

It may all be anecdotal, but I don't really understand why this sort of inter-generational support structure isn't promoted more often. Is it just that rare? I feel like it was extremely positive for all involved. My folks were able to pursue careers they cared about and provided us with a comfortable working-class life while my sister and I lacked nothing (as far as I can see) in upbringing and support and, finally, I think being involved in our rearing was ultimately beneficial to the longevity and happiness of my grandparents. They both lived well into their 80's and we only really saw a notable cognitive/physical decline in my grandmother (after my grandfather suffered a fall and passed away rather suddenly).

Maybe geography and other factors make such an arrangement impossible for some, but it seemed to work well for my family.
This may have diverged a bit from the general topic at hand, but it was something I wanted to address. When I hear the oft spoken notion that a woman must sacrifice her career goals for her children/family (not saying that's what you're advocating here, Morphic) I just look at my own mother and think "Well, she didn't sacrifice her career goals or the well-being of her children, she had her own parents there to lend another pillar of support to the family and we were all better off for it."

Just seems like a natural solution to me, but I'm sure I have my blind-spots.

 

[Arch Dornan]

On one hand, I think folks seriously underestimate how difficult creating something like that would be. How would you do it? Some sort of uterine substrate grown out of pluripotent stems cells or something? How would such a thing provide the complex nutritional and hormonal blend necessary for healthy fetal development? I don't think you can just replicate those complex biological structures and processes outside of the female body.

The same way how society progresses. Someone does it and the rest of us can use it or not if we're still of age.

All those issues brought up is what the eggheads will take into account and the rest is just a matter of time.

You know, this seems to come up fairly often in the "Manosphere" and I think folks are really missing some key things. I don't really buy this notion that "artificial wombs" will "free" men or stand as some sort of threat to "gynocracy" or something.

I believe there will be change but what exactly this change will be when it happens. I don't think it'll "free" men as they think it will when it tests itself against reality but when it happens we can see the result of it.

 

[ATP]

I once read some short sci-fi novel,about USA making drug which made all people involving in sex feel pain instead of pleasure,to stop growing population in poor countries.
Unfortunatelly,it worked on all,including USA.
Story is old, so entire humanity died except Japan,becouse Emperor ordered them to do their duty,and they did it.
Japan now would fail,too.

 

[ShieldWife]

I once read some short sci-fi novel,about USA making drug which made all people involving in sex feel pain instead of pleasure,to stop growing population in poor countries.
Unfortunatelly,it worked on all,including USA.
Story is old, so entire humanity died except Japan,becouse Emperor ordered them to do their duty,and they did it.
Japan now would fail,too.

I think that the drug might ultimately have the desired effect (in addition to the catastrophic side effect) since wealthy nations could use large scale artificial insemination and poor countries couldn't. That would be a pretty dramatic effect, since only middle class or wealthier people (at least to start with) could afford children and only then if they choose to have them and invest in them.

We know that Japan couldn't survive that way from seeing Japan in real life. Even with pleasurable sex, the Japanese aren't doing their duty to reproduce.