Am I a Carrot?

Post Reply New Topic

No, it undermines the concept that the ****ONLY**** reason sex feels good is to get people to reproduce. For some reason, women's anatomy didn't develop that way. Human sexuality is complicated and doesn't need to be tied to reproduction.

You shouldn't anthropomorphize "Nature." If we're going to do that, "Nature" created stuff like gay dolphins who bang each other in their blowholes. "Nature" created women with their orgasmic organ outside of the vagina and apart from the reproductive act. Therefore, sexual activity removed from reproduction is very much also a part of "Nature's Plan."

How did this "researcher" arrive at the magic number of "two?" It used to be serfs and slaves who worked the land.


Once you've accumulated your lifetime's worth of resources, you wouldn't have any strength left to compete for access to females.


I don't think so. "Leveling the playing field" is a relatively modern goal. There wouldn't have been any point to avoid harem building. The agricultural "network" would not have collapsed, so long as enough serfs and slaves were available.

These "researchers" seem to possess very little in the way of qualifications.

That's a funny joke

the magical number of "two" is based on the number of adults (plus children) that could be supported by a piece of land of a given size, without the introduction of advanced technologies. keep in mind, this is prior to recorded history, so we are not talking about the period when serfs and slaves were used in order to work larger pieces of land.

in order for a person to have a serf or a slave, they have to have some kind of power over other people. regular farmers don't really have that in early agricultural days. and it makes no sense that a person would want to utilise a serf when they could have a partner who shares the labour. then they could have shared labour AND sex AND children AND also possibly pass that land down to a descendant.

this doesn't really make any sense, and hasn't proven to be true in any sort of reality. but since the most successful pairings are in fact egalitarian ones, i suppose you can breathe a sigh of relief about that issue.


no, having men with extra wives (and hence other men without access to wives) could disrupt the social order in any given civilisation. seeing as how you personally have complained about similar wife shortages in other countries and "accessibility" ad nauseum, i imagine that you already know that.

Well it does seem like men's labor is valued more because people are able to assign a monetary value to it. Or maybe men's labor is assigned a monetary value because it is exchanged for sex, but women's work is just expected of them (which mother needs an incentive to take care of her own baby?)? But anyway, until the industrial revolution, women were not able to do most of the most productive labors (apart from raising children) because they were physically strenuous. Or even if they could perform them, they could not have done them as well as men, and not at all while they were pregnant. If we lived in a low-productivity world where one person alone could not provide for a child (even if that person's labor were equivalent to another's), then having a partner who would be willing to take up a large share of the labor would be equally important as the one who had to get pregnant and breast-feed. It would be like if I wanted to build something, and I had the raw materials to do it, but it would take two of me to build the thing, then I would be willing to trade some of the fruits of whatever it was I was building with somebody who would be willing to provide labor (I am the woman in this metaphor).

That's the thing with sex that's frustrating - quite often the two people don't want to at the same time. So should you even if you don't feel like it because you know your partner wants to? I don't know.

My understanding is that a fetus is gender neutral for the first few weeks of development, but then when the y chromosome starts to kick in (assuming the baby is a boy), then the outer lips fuse to form the scrotum (you can see a line on the scrotum where this happened), the ovaries descend to form the testes, and the clit becomes the penis. This is also why men have nipples, because all the parts for both genders have to be there when the fetus first starts developing.

I'm thinking the clit is so pleasurable because if at some point it became advantageous for women to start enjoying sex, then the clit would be the easiest way of making that happen, because it is like an undeveloped penis (which is the source of pleasure for a man).

For most animals it seems like the women are indifferent to sex, or sometimes are hostile to it, and male sex drive is sufficient for propagating the species, so it would seem like female pleasure in sex is not tied 100% to reproduction, like you said.

I am wondering: do you receive clitoral stimulation while having regular sex? It seems like with two people so close to each other, there could be some accidental stimulation which could make it pleasurable.

actually, no. you have it exactly backwards. like i said before, women participated fully in labours on the farm or in trades - it is only the most physically demanding tasks that they could not have done, and men didn't do those all day either. it's only fairly recently that male labour has been monetised while female labour was not (and even at that point, much female labour was still monetised, just at lower pay), and now things are gradually becoming more egalitarian again.

there is this idea that women throughout history were not working, but that is essentially a rich ideal that isn't true in reality. when men were working, women were also working (even outside the home, just like men). very few women stayed at home and didn't work at all, at any point throughout history.

there is something called the "c-v distance" which refers to the distance between the clitoris and vagina. it has a correlation to whether a woman is likely to have any direct stimulation during intercourse. only 27% of women can reliably have an orgasm by vaginal sex alone, and they tend to usually have a shorter distance between those two points.

Depending on position, it can happen and it does feel good. It's usually just not enough to climax. Stripping sex down to the reproductive act alone ( penis in vagina, ejaculate and done ) can be unfulfilling and frustrating for women because of this. I wouldn't be surprised if it's this approach to sex which has led to a lot of women's ambivalence.

In the Victorian era, many women would visit doctors who would massage their clitoris to cure their "hysteria." "Hysteria" is what they called sexual frustration at a time when there was widespread ignorance and denial of female sexuality. This is how vibrators were invented and they immediately became quite popular. The reproductive act just isn't enough for many of us.

I'm not sure what you're getting at but thankfully I live in a society where women are paid equal wages for work of equal value.

And if an employer thinks that they can pay me less just because I'm a woman, then I can sue the employer.

I'm not anthropomorphizing anything. I never said anything about "natures plan". All you're proving is that the Clitoris is superfluous to what humans, and all other plants & animals are here to do, reproduce. Which is the whole reason why tribes in africa practice clitorectimies on poor little girls. They know it has no bearing on reproduction.

The only point of being alive is to propagate the species, humans simply get a few perks, likely developed because the women who enjoyed sex, had more sex, and thus had more offspring. I can't say anymore than that, as it's getting to the range of my knowledge of biology.

But what you're doing is looking for loopholes trying to play 'Gotcha!'.. when what I'm saying, that humans are here to make more humans through sexual reproduction, is kind of ascertained, and pretty well accepted. Your enjoyment of sex is just a byproduct of an evolutionary quirk, not a raison d'etre for your existence.

No, what I'm trying to do is make the point that there is a lot more to sex than reproduction and that this is all quite natural and in no way "cheapens" sex. To the contrary, it makes sex even more enjoyable for many people, and without any enjoyment and pleasure in life, what is the point of reproducing it in the first place?

When you say that society was historically more egalitarian, do you mean in prehistory? When I think of Europe back to the middle ages, it seems like society was patriarchal. The bible is pretty clearly patriarchal, and that's like 6000 years old. I always kind of assumed that attitudes in the Bible were fairly typical for the time period. It might be true that hunter gatherer's were more egalitarian, and early farmers were too, but I think that has less relevance to modern culture than things that happened more recently.

I can believe that women often worked in shops or things like that, but I have a hard time imagining a woman working the field all day with a hoe or plough and not getting beat up. In all the things I've ever read that depicted married couples before feminism, the men took pride in taking care of their women so that they didn't have to work (at least doing things that were considered men's work), and the women were only made to work when the men were poor and couldn't do everything by them self. For instance, I just finished reading the wizard of Oz, and Aunt Em was depicted as a beautiful woman when she first moved to Kansas, but got gray and old just like Kansas from having to help Uncle (can't remember his name) work the field, and they made it sound like she only had to do it because Uncle was poor. By the way, their depiction of Kansas was not very flattering, but for large portions of the year, everything is indeed flat and gray and expressionless. Anyway, everything I've ever read from the Bible to the Wizard of Oz seems to have the attitude that I just discussed.

And I think we've already achieved equality, too much actually. The numbers of men and women in college became equal in the 1980's (now 2/3 of college graduates are female), and equal pay for equal work was achieved in 2010. Men make more money still because they do more hazardous jobs with longer hours. How many female plumbers, trash men, or miners do you know? Almost all work place deaths are men. Men also make up the majority of homeless, imprisoned, and are much more likely to be victims of violent crime. So men are at both the top and bottom of society, but on average women are just as well off, or more so, than men. Women also have reproductive rights, whereas men basically don't have any. A single ejaculation can obligate a man to take care of a woman for life, even if he didn't agree to become a father, whereas that woman could have used contraception or gotten an abortion at any time. Also, if a man is unable to take care of his children, he goes to jail (even if he got laid off and is looking for a job), whereas women get help from the state. And women almost always get custody. It seems to make sense that if women have 100% control over their fertility (which they should, and ideally do), then they should bear 100% of the consequences, but they don't.

To reproduce. That's it. There is no "Point" except perpetuation.