The future of sex and females

[Admin]

What I am finding a lot these days when having friends over for dinner and other social gatherings is the discussions popping up on the whole female dominance movement that seems to be taking over the world at the moment. We have the MeToo movement, equal opportunity, and much more so much so that here in Australia irrespective of whether a male or female is suited to a job or not, many government entities are mandating an equal 50/50 employment of males and females. This includes Firefighters, you know people who run into burning building and carry adults out on their shoulders. I for one really hope that I don't find myself in a burning building and a female says to me "sorry I can't lift you so goodbye".

 

Anyway, I decided to do some research on the very topic of irrespective of equal opportunity, what does the future hold for mankind, what is really needed in the macro sense for mankind to survive the future? Because an interesting fact is that the United Nations predict that the Earth can in its current state only support between 8 to 16 billion people, scientists believe that 10 billion is more likely the maximum the Earth can sustain (ref: HERE). With this in mind it is believed that by the end of the century we will have 11 billion people. This is greater than what scientists believe the Earth can sustain.

 

So what do we do to reduce the number of people and give planet Earth a lot longer life yet still keep an acceptable population growth/turnover...Females are no longer needed in the world.

 

Now I bet that gets a lot of people going

 

Lets look at some facts why:

 

1. In the last 10 years there has been a 1,000% growth in male sex toy production (ref: HERE)

 

2. A Male is the only human type that can manufacture life (the manufacture of sperm)

 

3. Females do not manufacture life as they are born with eggs that come from around 7 million oocytes in a 16 to 20 week female fetus. This drops to a result of around 400 actual eggs at puberty. At 16-20 weeks gestation a legal abortion can still be performed and after the harvesting of those oocytes. (ref: HERE)

 

4. In 2010, an artificial womb (ovary) was developed that can mature harvested oocytes into viable eggs (ref: HERE)

 

5. It was once considered theory that Males could be implanted with a fertilised egg that would be attached to a blood supply in the abdomen and carry a fetus to full term and give birth via a cesarean however it was considered very risky in the old days. Now an artificial womb can be implanted into a male who can then easily give birth (ref: HERE)

 

So, Males don't need to have sex with a female as they now have a vast variety of lifelike sex toys plus they can carry and give birth to male babies with the females fetuses being used purely as a source of oocytes and then the female fetus is terminated in under 20 weeks.

 

See, females are not needed BUT Males are if civilisation is to continue.

 

If this was implemented today, in 100 years the Earths population would drop, by just under what the Earth's total population is today, by at least 6 billion from what it was going to be making our planet more sustainable of continuing human life.

 

Hey, don't shoot the messenger...these are just facts that often come up in conversations had in social gathering that have been brought about by the push for total domination by females of today

 

 

[nomadpete]

You really are trying your hardest to re ignite the activity on the forum!

 

I admire that.

 

But your hypothesis fails to consider that half of the voting populace is female and the other half is compromised by the females. It'll never get up. Besides, what male would volunteer to bear a child? I sure wouldn't!

 

 

[old man emu]

But delivery by C-section wouldn't be any worse than a hernia operation.

 

 

[nomadpete]

But,OME, I seem to recall that hernias seldom weigh anything like the weight of an infant.

 

It is an interesting reversal of the 'old wisdom' where the male of the species was going to become redundant.

 

But even though all that Ian lists may be achievable, it would be an unlikely path toward survival of the human race. My reasoning is that we are all governed by mammalian instincts. These instincts compel humans to mate (the old fashioned way). Folks aren't capable of resisting primal instincts. Even as we head for disaster by overbreeding, folks will glorify breeding.

 

BTW, there is a simple logical benefit of removing procreation from the female body:- humans are the only species where the female birth canal is too small for females to give safe 'natural' birth without a lot of outside help. A case of not-so-intelligent design!

 

 

[hihosland]

[quote="

 

BTW, there is a simple logical benefit of removing procreation from the female body:- humans are the only species where the female birth canal is too small for females to give safe 'natural' birth without a lot of outside help. A case of not-so-intelligent design!

 

At each big jump in the evolution of humans there has been an increase in the size of the cranium and a consequent need to adjust the female pelvis to accommodate, hence the need at this stage for "outside help".

 

If there was to be another jump along the same lines then birth for that line of humans could only be by C section, possibly leading to a divergence into two races one with the ability and resources to support sufficient C Sections to survice as a race, and another stuck in the evolutionry groove where we currently find ourselves. This could over time lead to there being two separate H sapiens species.

 

 

[nomadpete]

This could over time lead to there being two separate H sapiens species.

Wouldn't be the first time for that!

 

Infant head sizes aren't getting any smaller. Childbirth has a high mortality rate for women. Its a higher risk activity than flying little aeroplanes. So far, nobody has made any moves to address the basic cause of birthing problems.

 

Maybe we could use genetic engineering and eugenics to modify head sizes down a couple of sizes smaller. It's not likely that our females would excitedly adopt the alternative of breeding our women to have a wider childbearing hips.

 

Or just ban them from having babies? (Obviously thats not going to happen)

 

 

[Marty_d]

Interesting theory. I'd prefer birth rates to decrease by increased education & wealth to developing countries, removing the need for families to punch out as many kids.

 

Sex toys aside, a vision of a future without women sounds like hell to me.

 

 

[hihosland]

Marty did say "......a vision of a future without women sounds like hell to me. "

 

I would reckon so!!

 

My wife often propounds her favourite solution to the worlds' problems.

 

ie remove all testicles at 14 and replace them at 45.

 

 

[spacesailor]

The cure Is here already!,.

 

If 20 to 30% of the male population go homosexual, & the same with the females, there should be a remarkably large drop in child birth very soon after the "same,sex,marriage" laws are in Full force.

 

Then we'll have another JackBootJohny, paying under age children to have More baby's.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[spacesailor]

It's not just the "other-type" human, that's loses out but the poor-old Heterosexual will have a greater problem of finding a "mate" , if 50% of the population are removed from the mating game !.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Marty_d]

Sex dolls are the answer. They're becoming very realistic (I've heard) and will probably soon become an accepted alternative to a "live" sexual partner.

 

Not saying it's particularly good for society or the human race in general, but if half the population would rather hump a robot than a human, the birth rate will go down.

 

 

[spacesailor]

If we do get a falling birth-rate, Big business and the government, will Demand larger & larger immigration,

 

then

 

"Then we'll have another JackBootJohny, paying under age children to have More baby's."

 

spacesailor

 

 

[nomadpete]

No problem there, most immigrants prefer large breeding profiles. ( Lotsa kids)

 

 

[spacesailor]

There will be no Aussie left, if we (Australian), don't breed, and import foreigners to breed for us.

 

Might as well change the name,& flag, whilst changing the Australian day date.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[spacesailor]

Perhaps, that the solution is,

 

Foreigner's with extra large Hips payed to be "surrogate" child bearers, for our slim waisted wives.

 

Sounds a bit like Film-stars. Which brings the "Ultimate" LAW,

 

LOGANS RUN

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Yenn]

Sex toys could well be tha answer, they might well be more attractive than the average Aussie who is overweight tending to obese.

 

 

[spacesailor]

SO, Are you saying the "Sex Doll" will reject us poor fat bald Australians.?.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[nomadpete]

Only if you're poor. Other shortcomings can usually be overlooked.

 

 

[Admin]

shortcomings

Hmmm

 

 

[spacesailor]

How short, 5' 8" tall enough ?.

 

Not too fat, not too bald and only a little poor. I'll nip over to Thailand & get looked over to see if I am exceptable.

 

Were to go for a good looking sex-doll at a reasonable price, like a secondhand plane?.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[nomadpete]

I'd go for a plane instead.

 

A plane can be cheaper upkeep, more reliable, and give hours of pleasure without tiring you out.

 

Best of all, a plane doesn't care if you're a bit on the small side.

 

 

[Admin]

But their both no good when they get a puncture

 

 

[facthunter]

Planes are pretty sexy and some folks reckon BEER IS BEST. I get indigestion from BEER. and a reaction to the free sugar in it. They say women look better through the bottom of a beer glass and champagne (Ladies giggle juice) must have been invented so ugly wealthy and fat blokes get some slap and tickle. Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

Rubber dolls go down on you when they are punctured.. Nev

 

 

[Geoff13]

Isn't that the whole idea.