11 ms·

>Within twenty, maybe forty, years most people in developed countries will stop having sex for the purpose of reproduction. That's a load of hyperbole. First,

• blisse 11y ago
  It's really hard to take an objective stance with the article when the opening statement feels that outrageous...
• Pxtl 11y ago
  https://xkcd.com/678/ https://xkcd.com/678/ 4th row.
• Delmania 11y ago
  > Second, a lot of people actually like reproducing via sex. This is something I thought of. We're biologically engineered to desire sex, and most forms of birth control deprive the pleasure we get from the act. Unless you're one of those people who are into karezza, I'm not sure the author's idea is going to appeal to you.
  • Raphmedia 11y ago
    To save everyone a risky search, "Simply stated, Karezza is the practice of gentle, sexual intercourse, without the goal of orgasm. " But I don't see how birth control would deprive you from pleasure from the sexual act. Both partners can get orgasms in safe sexual intercourses...
    • Delmania 11y ago
      It depends on the method. I don't think I've ever met someone who likes condoms, and IUTs can be painful if something happens (personal experience). The only method I can think of would be birth control medication, which I know a lot of women use for hormone regulation. However, that's not fail safe. Some of my family member got pregnant while "on the pill".
      • Raphmedia 11y ago
        Around here, all women are on the pill. You only get errors when they don't take it correctly, and there's the morning after pill for that. My personal experience with IUTs is that they work really well with no issues. As for condoms, if you really must use them, simply pay extra for quality and there won't be any issues with how it feels. Most people negative experience with condoms are with those they give for free at schools and you might just as well use a thick rubber balloon at that point...
        • shaftway 11y ago
          People who say that there's no difference with a condom are either lying, have never had sex without a condom, or have a serious defect in their nerve endings. Doesn't matter what brand, quality, or style. The only people I've ever heard of liking condoms are the ones that have trouble with premature ejaculation, where the [significantly] reduced sensation can help them last longer.
          • Raphmedia 11y ago
            [Why am I even talking about condoms on HN?] You need to pay premium to get the thin ones and use plenty of lube. If you get the right ones, you will get all the normal feelings (heat, pressure, etc.) except for the wetness. It will not be the exact same feeling as sexual intercourse without a condom, but it will be close enough. That's a small price to pay to be safe with that one-nigh hookup. If condoms are really an issue for you, get a stable partner that is on birth control. I do not use condoms very often since I am in a stable relationship, but if I can manage to have a load of fun using sleeves that are as thick as dozen condoms and covered with speed bumps from time to time, surely you can manage the occasional thin rubber.
      • hnal943 11y ago
        Also, the pill depresses most women's libdos. I don't think we've listed a non-surgical method of birth control that doesn't reduce pleasure.
    • s_kilk 11y ago
      > But I don't see how birth control would deprive you from pleasure from the sexual act. Both partners can get orgasms in safe sexual intercourses... Yeah, but condoms suck, categorically. It's a night/day difference.
  • misthop 11y ago
    While I don't agree with the abstract, I have to disagree with you as well. Men who have had a vasectomy can still have sperm removed for use in an artificial insemination process. In the vast majority of cases sex does not change at all for them after the vasectomy (except for taking the 6 weeks off immediately after the surgery) Edit for circlefavshape's comment: You are right, I got numbers confused. It is suggested to use alternate forms of birth control for 2-3 months after the surgery to verify the success.
    • circlefavshape 11y ago
      6 weeks? 10 days in my case
      • deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      • justinlardinois 11y ago
        My understanding is that while you may be able to resume activity before then, you run the risk of still being fertile.
        • circlefavshape 11y ago
          Ah. Yes, you are correct - you need to use other contraception until you provide a semen sample that contains no sperm
  • chongli 11y ago
    We're very close to having safe, reversible, hormone-free male contraception now. It's called Vasalgel[0] and it looks extremely promising. [0] https://www.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/vasalgel/ https://www.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/vasalgel/
    • dpeck 11y ago
      I've seen the same story off and on for years, I'll be pleasantly surprised if it ever comes to market.
  • k__ 11y ago
    > most forms of birth control deprive the pleasure we get from the act What?!
• davemel37 11y ago
  > The ethical frameworks in a lot of developed countries currently are very much in defense of biological inception and against technological interference. It's books like this that require these ethical frameworks and it's really a shame. These medical advances have very important use cases in the medical and Infertile community, and these ethical frameworks create massive amounts of heartache and painful waiting for those that really need these advances. Why do people always have to find ways to exploit technology that can do great things for selfish purposes and ruin it for everyone else?
• JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  The evidence is to the contrary. Folks in developing countries are not having sex for reproduction in statistically growing numbers. Japan, Germany, France and now the US are in or going to be in population decline. I'd say, unless we advance our timeline, we're in danger of becoming extinct. So let's hope the article is not all hyperbole.
  • iSnow 11y ago
    >I'd say, unless we advance our timeline, we're in danger of becoming extinct. Sure but this does not contradict what I wrote. I don't think designer babies is the way out of the unwillingness to reproduce we witness in industrialized countries. Maybe baby-care robots, maybe minimal basic income.
  • astazangasta 11y ago
    You're confusing "not reproducing" with "reproducing using non-sexual means". The notion that we'll go extinct because of low fertility rates when the world is vastly overpopulated also seems incorrect to me.
    • iSnow 11y ago
      I do think he has a point though. Wherever people are wealthy enough to spend money on vacations and other activities, they seem to value leisure time over reproduction. Currently, the world population is still growing, but that's mostly due to poorer countries and sub-populations. AFAIK, not even the US's whites are enough to sustain the population size: "Expected lifetime births have also fallen for White non-Hispanic women from 1.91 in 2007 to 1.75 in 2013. U.S. White non-Hispanic births have been below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman for decades." (http://www.unomaha.edu/news/2015/01/fertility.php http://www.unomaha.edu/news/2015/01/fertility.php). It is even worse in Europe and Russia.
      • onnoonno 11y ago
        > It is even worse in Europe and Russia. Maybe it is a question of a middle ground? I see a slowly declining population as being positive for humanity. I think 1e9 children having a materially secure future is much better than 1e11 children fighting wars for the last scraps of resources. Also if those children are not mine.
• daodedickinson 11y ago
  I've recently watched some films from the 1950s, and sex then was so incredibly different from the 1990s it's astonishing and disorienting. I don't think the timeline is unrealistic. John Paul II's theology of the body is the only cogently and fully articulated philosophical opponent to this development (that I know about) and most Catholics have never heard of it.
  • misthop 11y ago
    The _representation of sex on film_ was different in the 50s and the 90s. The act of sex was largely identical.
    • panglott 11y ago
      Sexual culture on average really was quite different in the 1950s and 1960s. Public norms were certainly very different before the sexual revolution, and public norms can certainly influence private behavior. There were norms against public discussion or depictions of sex, norms against oral sex (especially by men), norms against same-sex relations, norms against premarital sex, norms against childbirth out of wedlock, norms against female expression of sexual desire, denial that marital rape is possible, general denial of rape accusations, &c., &c. In the 1940s and 1950s, people had very fuzzy and wrong ideas about things like female orgasm and sexual orientation—the Kinsey Reports really were a huge shock. At the margin, all of these norms can shape average sexual experience and behavior. Look back to the 19th century, and if you look at the number of brothels in even small towns in the US, it's just astonishing: in 1880 or 1890 IIRC, my midwestern hometown was a small town of two thousand people that had more than a hundred brothels advertising. Women had limited legal rights outside of marriage and very limited employment opportunities, and with the example a very large community of sex workers, women had very real incentives to avoid even the hint of a threat to their "marriagability" (ie., virginity and "modesty"). 1890 is just three generations removed from 1950. Remember it was in the 1950s that people fought major free-speech fights to print and distribute "obscene" books that had been banned for decades, like Lady Chatterley's Lover and Tropic of Cancer. In the 1930s, censorship was upheld in the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act due to the threat of reading the obscene parts on the Senate floor. These days pornography is omnipresent, and there are bestselling books by women about how great anal sex is.
• gdubs 11y ago
  I'd like to see if within twenty to forty years people stop freaking about about GMO crops...
• diskcat 11y ago
  > in defense of biological inception the movie?
• bitL 11y ago
  They might be thinking about the rise of herbivore men, MGTOW, surrogacy, emasculated men/defeminated women etc. alongside technology enabling to bypass nature's intended way to reproduce.
• justinlardinois 11y ago
  And even if we get past the social barriers, there's still cost. I can't imagine a program like this being taxpayer funded (for a lot of reasons that are too numerous to get into) so only those who can afford it will have the option.