• Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Your average 4channer didn’t need anime girls to stop them having sex.

    Their hygiene and misogyny did most of the heavy lifting there.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Lots of people pass through phases of maturity, from jerking it to weird cartoons when puberty hits to hanging out in the bar till last call after your second divorce.

      You’re going to be distressed to discover how many people on 4chan are fucking. Horniness isn’t reserved for straight white weebs and there are plenty of women who are prone to making bad decisions, especially as they get older and the pool of eligible bachelors shrinks.

      • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        It’s true, there are actually people who seek out those kinds of people. Story time!

        My ex had this thing, maybe a fetish, about being desirable to…social outcasts? I’m having trouble finding an inoffensive term for them. Mix well 1 kg of gamer guys and 0.5 liters of unwashed weeaboo, add a dash of Axe body spray, and place in a fedora overnight. Sprinkle liberally with crinkly neck hair (or are they pubes?) before serving raw.

        Anyhow, she enjoyed helping these guys lose their virginity. She was fairly attractive, an objective 6-7/10, but dressed well and was very charming. She told me about one guy she met through an anime club in college. When they tried to have sex the first time, he was flaccid and was too embarrassed to verbalize why. Apparently he turned on his computer and queued up some hentai, which he silently watched until he could achieve an erection. They had sex multiple times and each required a hot hentai injection.

        I didn’t find out about any of this until we’d been together for over two years. I initially had no issue with it beyond her having hidden it from me. Then she wanted to resume the behavior in an open relationship, immediately or she was leaving. I became promptly single.

  • Screen_Shatter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I feel like an old man cause anime girls look weird to me. I see this stuff, the obviously hyper sexualized cartoon girls, and I’m always like “you guys know about pornhub, right? Pictures of real women, videos, millions of them are a click away!” So like, wtf is up with the cartoon fetish? I’m not shaming it, I just don’t get it.

    • Aggravationstation@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      I had that exact thought about the anime girls, read your comment, silently agreed with it, upvoted it and then immediately looked at my figurine of Jessica Rabbit and said “ah, fuck” out loud.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 hours ago

      So like, wtf is up with the cartoon fetish?

      Sexual appetites are informed by the images of people you familiarize yourself with. Not usual for people to seek out partners who remind them of old friends or family members, because that’s the image they’ve imprinted on as attractive.

      If you surround yourself with images of japanese cartoons (particularly horny ones, particularly when you’re young and impressionable and you’d fuck a fire hydrant on a hot day) its not going to be hard to fixate on cartoons fucking.

      If you surround yourself with booze and people your own age who are equally horny, you likely won’t have that temptation.

    • red@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      anime girls are drawn keeping perfection in mind, by logic they will always belre attractive than real woman. idk what is so hard to get it

    • Hikermick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Same here (am old man) but in the context of this post one can make the argument that pornography in general is reducing the population. Not necessarily a bad thing.

  • Jimmycakes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    135
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Except they don’t want human population to decrease. They need more and more people at the bottom of the global ponzi scheme to prop it up.

    • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Conservatives say that’s what they want, but they only really want to subjugate women. If they actually cared about population totals first, they would be working hard to make it so everyone who wanted a kid could get one.

      One core problem developed countries are experiencing, in terms of demography, is the mismatch between skills development and biological fertility. It takes people into their 30s or even 40s before they’re financially able to support children. For millions of couples, by the time they can financially support a child, the window has already closed. It takes so much education and experience to be competitive in advanced economies that it creates this mismatch.

      Now, we could have mass government-sponsored surrogacy. But that has so many ethical problems, that there is a reason no government has tried it. Yet, there is a near-term technology that we are on the verge of, but very little research dollars are dedicated towards. That is artificial gestation.

      When was the last time you heard Musk or any of the other demographics-obsessed tech bros throw a few billion at developing this tech? This technology, along with other advanced reproductive technologies, could really do a lot to raise the birth rate in developed countries. And there are other techniques that could also be leveraged with this, such as techniques to create egg and stem cells from skin samples. There’s a lot of near-term reproductive technologies waiting in the wings that could have a substantial effect on the birth rate, but that we simply haven’t fully developed yet.

      In fact, governments could cover the entire cost of the artificial gestation process if they want more people that badly. Ideally, anyone who is in the position to raise a child should be able to fill out an application, have some gametes created via a skin biopsy, and have an infant grown in a womb tank. And have the whole thing paid for by the State Population Initiative, or whatever you want to call it.

      There are millions of couples out there who have the financial means to raise a child, but simply are biologically incapable of having children. We typically flippantly tell these people, “just adopt!,” as if there is some vast supply of infants in orphanages just waiting for adoption. In truth, adopting an infant involves years-long wait lists and costs a hundred grand or more. But there are millions of couples that would love to have biological children, but simply can’t. They’re couples with reproductive issues, LGBT couples, couples that have aged out, etc. If conservatives actually cared about demographics, they would be doing everything they can to make it cheap and easy for these millions of couples to get the children they want. And while mass surrogacy isn’t really viable, a mature artificial gestation technology would be a game-changer.

      And yet, you never see someone like Musk suggesting we develop these technologies, let alone pouring some of his billions to their advancement. The truth is that hand-wringing over population is just the latest dog whistle against women’s rights. Their first goal is to subjugate women, the population issues are just an excuse.

      • Lumisal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Just want to point out, even with billions, an artificial womb would still not be seen for decades.

        Even something like growing a kidney has been incredibly difficult. A whole human would require essentially first fully understanding the whole process of pregnancy and how a fetus affects the body, and then maybe artificial organoids as well. It would probably be easier to figure out how to grow a brain first.

        Basically this is like the old saying of how you can’t make 9 women make 1 baby in 1 month.

        • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 hours ago

          IDK. Looking at that wikipedia article, the progress looks pretty good.

          Also, just on a conceptual level, growing a whole embryo may be a lot easier than growing a single organ. Organs really aren’t designed to grow by themselves. A fetus is designed to grow and develop. It needs a nutrient supply.

          But I think of it as the difference between trying to figure out how to grow plants in aquaponics vs trying to somehow coax plant cells to grow a flower without the rest of the flower plant present.

          • Lumisal@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            *A flower with seeds, unless you want a bunch of sterile future humans too.

            Growing an embryo is easy. Growing an embryo into a fetus is hard. Growing a fetus into a baby is still very very unknown. There’s a LOT of signal pathways to figure out with many hormone mixtures as well. It wasn’t until recently that only one aspect of sex development was even somewhat figured out:

            https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181215141333.htm

            And that’s not even getting into more complicated things. It’s still not understood why some people are born heterosexual, others homosexual, bisexual, etc. But it is thought to have something to do with development in the womb (look up how the odds of being a gay man go up the more kids a woman has). If something like orientation is affected by womb development, what else is? Intelligence? Empathy? Facial Features?

            And if you get it wrong, the result can be unethical. You could end up with many humans who have no empathy, or as I mentioned, sterile, or whoops everyone is hetero now, or all of them have severe learning disabilities.

            And if you get it right, guess what the rich will do? Gattica btw.

            A lot of progress has been done, yes, but there’s still way, way more. People forget the human genome wasn’t even mapped out until the early 2000s, and less than 50 years ago people could still smoke in a lot of hospitals.

            • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Sure it would be difficult. It wouldn’t be easy. Like anything, you don’t just start with humans. You start with mice and work your way up from there. But you’re right, it would I suppose not be a near term thing. But still, for people like Musk, who always insist how they are so concerned with the future ‘survival of humanity?’ If you’re that worried about underpopulation, to the point you’re willingly throwing away civil rights, wouldn’t such a thing be worth funding, even if it takes a century to figure it out?

    • NIB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      As automation/robotics/ai get better, humans transform from an asset to a liability. Fewer people means fewer protestors/rioters/revolutionaries/universal income recipients/whatever.

    • kyle@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Yeah I went down a rabbit hole (heh) trying to see if it was true.

      And no, turns out it’s just a bunch of pesticides and more recently (since the mid 90s) they apparently infect them on purpose with something that destroys their liver.

    • psud
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      The sexy fakes is from mosquitos. And they’re not sexy fakes, they’re just like the other male mozzies but sterile

      Australia has only used biological control. The stuffed rabbit host of a childrens’ tv shows was named Mixie for one of the biological controls: mixomatosis - a rabbit virus used in the past.

    • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Given the existence of products like “real doll”, there’s some merit to it happening to humans.

      I don’t know enough about any of it since I’m in a relationship with someone who has a pulse, and I like it that way.

      • ddplf@szmer.info
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        It’s a product aimed at people that can’t get laid otherwise, and from what I hear it’s usually a one-time thing because people soon realize it’s as good as thrusting a plank.

        Suggesting that it’s real purpose is to control birth rate is just fucking ridiculous, nobody will ever ditch their woman because they figured that an unmoving full-sized fake vagina is better at sex than her.

  • SolarMonkey@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    That’s a fair point until you realize that humans are a lot smarter than rabbits. (Supposedly)

  • Azzu@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Why scary? Wouldn’t it be good if the human population didn’t increase more?

    • Buglefingers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Yes and no, the way our society is built/structured can’t handle negative growth. A lot of infrastructure and way of life/quality of life would suffer massively. That being said, pop growth also can’t go up forever (while limited to earth). We actually have a ton of livable land left too, cities have learned how to be so super dense that it’s eating all the rural area’s populations in quickly developing places (It’s where all the jobs and opportunities are -cities). Estimates suggest we will top off around 10 billion people

      • loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Fertility rates are on the decrease everywhere.This doesn’t mean that population is decreasing, population increases as long as the fertility rate is superior to 1, which is still the case in a large portion of the world, but I think humanity on a global scale is expected to go beneath that treshold around 2050-2060.

  • atro_city@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Yes, they want less mindless workers that they can control, not more. Makes total sense.