Sex and Reproduction Stand in Opposition to Each Other

I occasionally engage in thought experiments. "If this was like that, what would be the end result?"

Now imagine if men and women had internal values, under conscious control, that one way would lead to sex and reproduction, and the other way, just sex.

All those arguments about contraception and abortion...gone. Poof. They never would have started in the first place.

For several thousand years people have been trying to control their reproduction, sometimes in gruesome ways, such as exposing babies to die, the way the Romans did.

And a lot of the "witchcraft" in the Bible was about "witches" using herbs to induce abortion.

For the matter, right in Genesis there are admonitions about filling the earth with people, and how women claim they're going to die unless they have children, or daughters having sex with their drunken father in order to have children.

Yet, while the urge for sex is strong, the urge to reproduce is not. That, I suspect is why there are all these prohibitions throughout history against abortion and contraception, and all these encouragements to have children.

Because, when it comes right down to it, many people don't want to have children, and when they do, they want very few, not a lot.

Imagine if we had those internal values 2000 years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if the earth only had about one-fourth the population it has now. If not less.

My paternal grandparents had nine children. Three didn't survive past 21. My father, who almost didn't survive past 17 due to a horrendous car wreck, was one of those nine children. He and my mother only had two: my sister and me.

That's a big drop in the number of children.

If the urge to reproduce was strong, the population of the world wouldn't be dropping (except for Africa).

Since Americans aren't reproducing, everyone is up in arms about it, and it's one reason the government is importing 85 IQ to 90 IQ Third Worlders).

There are even movies about reproduction, such as Idiocracy

The late Arthur C. Clarke, many decades ago (I believe in his novel, Childhood's End) suggested what would happen if we had 100% effective contraception. For one, the destruction of the family.

Science-fiction writers are never right on the specifics (except by accident) but they are often right in general.

When people are not at replacement level, then the formation of families starts to collapse. So Clarke was right in that way.

There was a movie I saw a few years ago, called Children of Men. Its premise is that one day, no more children were being born.

Now imagine where that would lead.

My experience has been that when women put off having children, due to abortion and effective contraception, then when they decide to have children, they can't get pregnant. They get Babies Rabies but no babies pop out. They waited too long. If the urge for reproduction was overwhelming, they'd be squirting out kids at age 13, and refusing all birth control and abortion.

Now where does that lead? Just look around at many of the women today.

My experience has also been many men don't particularly want to have children (again, the urge to reproduce is weak) but when they do, they're glad they did.

Of course, reality puts the kabosh on some of the dumber concepts in the Manosphere, such as women choosing "alphas" to have children then choosing "betas" to provide for them. I've never seen this, not once. There's no evidence for it, either. It's one of the mental masturbatory fantasies, like most evolutionary theory.

You can't have it both ways, with women aborting over 60 million fetuses, along with conception so effective their ovaries have dried up by the time they want to have children. Then allofasudden they run out and if they can pregnant by an "alpha" and then find some "beta" (somewhere, somehow) to support them. What sort of naive nitwit came up with this crap?

In college I was taught men are supposed to want to spread their sperm far and wide while women are supposed to seek one man to support her and her children.

I certainly had problems with that, since my experience starting at age 13 was that women were the wildly promiscuous ones, the ones who'd have sex with any man they found halfway attractive. And that has been the history of the world.

As for men, it wasn't about trying to screw every woman they could, since men are the real romantics. You can't have that both ways, either, with men being the real romantics and at the same time wanting to screw 100 women (I've met guys who've spent their lives seducing women, and all were weaklings incapable of love).

So modern-day evolutionary theory has some fatal problems...just like the Manosphere.

The only way I see out of these problems is to look to the past, when we had government a fraction of the size we have now, with sound money, with high-paying jobs for men where they could support a family (because raising children is extraordinarily expensive and don't those imbeciles in the government realize that?).

Even with effective conception and abortion and the collapse of families, I suspect these problems would cure themselves, as they always have in the past.

This isn't going to happen for a long time, though.