The Baby Bust Generation

[Pook]

I find the idea of collapsing birthrates to be interesting, so I posted it because I thought other people might find it interesting.

The reason why this thread appeared in 'Anything Else' is because this is anything else.

One thing I am optimistic about is how more and more scholars are beginning to turn their focus on sexuality and society. They are asking, "What exactly is marriage?" "What are the origins of these old sexual laws?" "Why do some people have children and others do not?" These are all good questions.

What are the consequences of a collapsing birth rate? Will there be any long term consequences? Is there a problem? Or is this simply going to be a matter of a larger older population?

Lots of questions emerge from this. What I find also intersting is how George Bernard Shaw predicted it in the "Don Juan in Hell". In fact, it seems that "Don Juan in Hell" is a discussion of the ideas that lead or don't lead to population decline.

It seems that if birth rates do collapse, governments will take an interest in people's private lives. "Compelling interest" will override past objections. After all, a nation isn't going to let itself go out of existence.

Cultural ideas on sexuality and even government policy will change on this demigraphic shift, don't you guys find it fascinating? I sure do.

Nocturnal

This thread is becoming a mess, but I did catch your post.

You are right to suspect ideological single mindedness in Lomborg's book. We ought to hold all people through the same suspicion. However, a press release on 12/31/03 says, "The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation has today repudiated findings by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DSCD) that Bjørn Lomborg's book 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' was 'objectively dishonest' or 'clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice'."

Critics have responded to Lomborg and Lomborg has responded to his critics. It's all out there.

Lomberg's book is about the litany, the idea of doomsday. Lomberg is still an environmentalist, his book is just saying that doomsday will not come about. Food supplies keep growing, resources keep becoming more plentiful, the world keeps getting better and better. "But it is not getting better fast enough!" he argues.

There exists an entire industry based on 'doomsdays'. The world will end because of X. When the doomsday passes, they just update the doomsday.

Remember the Y2k scare? People honestly believed as soon as the year hit 2000, planes would fall out of the sky, stock market would crash, food would cease to exist, and so on. Most people fell into the category of, "Well, I don't think anything will happen... but... we must play it safely..."

After the New Year, were there any problems? No. "It is because we prevented it with our foresight." What if there was no problem in the first place? "That cannot be, there was a problem and we prevented it!" The doomshovelers will never admit they are wrong or mistaken. It is like all reality must fit the doomsday template. I don't see how one can live with such a pessimistic world view.

The reason why I posted Lomborg and Simon was because they skewered these typical doomsdays. I found being freed from believing that an inevitable doomsday was right around the corner was liberating.

Who wants to go through life expecting doomsday? Ugh, give me life, not 'disaster'.

What is interesting is that if you show a doomsdayer that the doomsday is not going to occur, they do not get happy but enraged. You would think they ought to be happy, that they needed not worry about such a problem. But they don't. They lash out at you.

It just shows that unhappy people are controlled by ideas, whereas happy people control their ideas.

----------------------------------

The reason why I'm becoming more and more shy about posting is the bizzarre responses I get. At first, it was something of deja vu. I'd post that Don Juan is a mindset, not a technique calculus and get the usual objections. My favorite one was the feminism post and the guy mad that I had a post against feminsm. "I'll never read you again!" Um.... OK! How does it affect me if you like or dislike my posts, or not even read them?

After the "Habit is All" post, I noticed something was up. How there could be any crazed objection to something so simple and clear boggled the mind. It seemed apparent that there are people who just like to go at it with authority, any authority. Since I am assumed to an 'authority', no matter what I post, there will be crazed responses to it. If I said, 'The sky is blue', someone would go, "No! It is red, Pook! Red!" People disagree with me all the time, but they like that I am contributing to the forum. Aside from the pook baiters, there are those who psycho-analyze any comment I make "Pook is arrogant." "Pook comes here only to get an egotistical ride." Frankly, I'm sick of it. If I post, there is no discussion of the post, it is discussion of pook and how he posted.

Ever since last fall, you've seen no tips posts from me. I'm still writing them (probably a couple hundred pages so far), but they stay on my computer. Why can't Atlas shrug? To those who think I'm here only to stroke my ego, why hold the posts? And to those who think I'm arrogant, why am I so quiet? And to you pook baiters, I'm taking away your nutrients so you leeches will starve. I'm here to help myself and exchange ideas; I have absolutely no interest in 'forum fame' or anything like that. I was posting before there was a DJ Bible. I was posting before and after 'pook' was talked about.

Do you think I'm going to tell the ladies, "Yes, I am Pook, MASTER DON JUAN from sosuave?" Do you think the ladies will go, "Oh! It is Pook! We bed famous internet forum people"!?

What you guys think of me does not improve or harm my success with the ladies. It's so meaningless that I'm stunned anyone would 'try' to write posts for the sole reason that they go to the DJ Bible! One day, I've always expected to get up, and see this forum vaporized. "Oh well," I would say. "It provided clarity to MY thought." Why anyone would waste any time fussing about Pook is beyond me.

Who says its my job to entertain you or anyone else? Why do you people make a fantastical image of me?

Why not make a fantastical image of yourself? That would be more interesting than anything Pook could say.

 

[Nocturnal]

Pook

Take a look at Maslov's hierarchy of needs. One of the them is esteem. This includes "the attention and recognition that comes from others" (http://web.utk.edu/~gwynne/maslow.HTM). The whole thing with doomsdayers is that their source of power and importance comes from making people go, "you showed us that we're in danger, now we can prepare for it!" Look at the media. They get their fame from people who eat up all of the exaggerations and lies put in front of them. Eating before you swim has never been proven to be harmful. In fact someone (can't remember who) did a test that disproved it. "Better safe than sorry!" though, right?

John Stossel visited my school recently, and he asked the audience something to the effect of, "if there was a new gas that was odorless, highly flammable, and subject to high amounts of heat, would you allow into your home under any circumstances?" A woman urged that it would be unacceptable, she had a very strong "no preventable danger is acceptable" attitude. Then he asked her what kind of stove she had. Gas.

The biggest possible problem I see that is the one that our society may blindly go to the point of valuing protection over freedom. But maybe doomsayers will turn into doomslayers. I tend to believe Adam's Smith's invisible hand applies to most things, society's rules only those of distinct human nature.

 

[DrMetallica]

John Stossel is a genious. I wish I could have met him.

Pook, I really enjoy your posts. They're some of the most insightful on the board. Doc approved

There will always be people who hate you, but you have to rise above them.

 

[PuertoRican_Lover]

What happened to this thread? I thought is was a forum to discuss sexuality and it's distortion (aside from poltical or religious zealots), and the effects of such???

My posts seem to be the only ones discussing the issue?

I guess I missed the whole point of this thread. Was it about population decline? I thought that was an effect and not a cause?

I always like to get at the root of the matter. All of the posts here are at the surface level and have diverged into many branches!

 

[ShortTimer]

I'll take a shot at a constructive response here:

Originally posted by Pook
If I post, there is no discussion of the post, it is discussion of pook and how he posted.

While I can't comment on those who attack the Pook's psychological state I can make a general comment about this statement. If you make a post and the method you used to arrive at your conclusions is flawed, then there is no point in talking at all about your conclusions.

For example: If I made a post that says, "Everyday this week that I've shaved, it has rained. So if I want to make it rain all I have to do is shave." This is clearly wrong because the method of thinking I have used is broken.

The same can often be said of your posts: often you will appeal to some poetic authority for why things are the way you think they are. But the truth is all the art, literature and poetry in the world is just someone's opinion. It's not truth and never will be. So relying on these as sources of some hidden truth is a flawed methodology. Therefore your conclusions do not have to be accepted, or even debated for that matter.

The authority of your sources doesn't make you right, force of argument makes you right.

As for this specific argument about broken sexuality = low birth rates I'll make a few comments. First you're making one hell of a logical leap without anything to back it up. It would seem to me that factors such as 1.) easier access to birth control, 2.) individual choice, 3.) changing social values, and 4.) economic benefit are all much easier ways to explain the decline in birth rates without leaving anything out. Ockham's razor; baby.

What will happen to social institutions when there are too many old and not enough young? They will collapse as right they should: collectivist/socialist policies do not work now, never have and never could. I will laugh at the day when our social institutions burn from their own lack of vision. The world will get what it deserves and collectivism will be buried in the shallow grave of history where it belongs.

Is sexuality broken? Meh... donno. First you have to gather evidence that sexuality exists at all (fare to say that it does) and define what it is. Then check its current state and defend why your interpretation of this data is also correct before you can even ask the question "is it broken?"

But let's ass-u-me that we know what sexuality is and sexuality is broken, what would a "healthy" sexuality look like?

 

[oldschool]

There is a reason you can't study sexuality. People are becoming pussies who get offended easily. Everyone is offended in today's society and you have to watch what you say. Just like the FCC's crackdown after the superbowl. Oh no, god forbid someone's kid sees a breast before age 35. Violence and foul language are okay, but nudity is off limits. Sexuality, not just having sex but sexuality in general, is seen as dirty.

The blame for people's view on sexuality can be placed on politics or religion, but there is a bigger culprit. Parents are teaching their children this mentality. I blame it more on the father, who needs to show his son how to be a man. How many fathers show their sons that mom is in charge? What other way would a boy know to treat a woman than what he has seen? In many cases the father doesn't stick around, leaving his son with no positive male influence.

Women's actions can also be traced to the father. They see how their mother acts like a *****, which is because the father allows her to. Then what other model do they have besides a nagging *****. And when they meet an AFC, they must take charge. They call the shots, control the relationship, and play the man's role. If they aren't loose sluts who give it away easily, there aren't many real men to have sex with.

It's too easy to blame men nowadays, we get the blame for everything. However, this situation is the man's fault. More men need to stand up and take charge to get rid of this distorted view of sexuality.

 

[oldschool]

Also, on the note of doomsdayers, they are idiots. The EPA, PETA, and other similar organizations are also idiots. You can't argue with these people because they are dumbasses. They don't base their point of view on logic, so you can't win my debating them. It's like the old saying, you can't win an arguement with an idiot, because they just drag you down to their level.

 

[WestCoaster]

How things get twisted

Well, Old School I'd have to agree on a lot of your points.

The problem with the anti-men movement out there (which includes women and well as men in the movement) is that they take a few incidents and paint a brush saying ALL men do this.

For example, domestic, sexual, and child abuse -- all awful, all horrific. A percentage of men do these awful acts in this country -- it should be a smaller percentage -- but not ALL men are doing this. As a matter of fact, the majority of men are NOT doing these things. But since a few are, women and others grasp on to it and paint men as bad. A few bad apples spoil the whole bunch. And this is where the anti-man movement has started.

Men don't think like this. One bad woman does not make every woman bad in men's eyes. Most men I know look at each incident separately.

But yes, today's U.S. male is a whimp. Go to your grocery store tomorrow night and you'll see AFC after AFC getting drug around the store and scolded. It's torture.

Turn on TV and nearly every commercial portrays men to be wimps and incompetents ... and women love these commercials and then of course are their usual hypocritical selves saying they want a confident man. No they don't. They want a pushover whom they can control.

I think a new man's movement needs to be started in the U.S.

 

[Nocturnal]

Originally posted by ShortTimer
The same can often be said of your <Pook's> posts: often you will appeal to some poetic authority for why things are the way you think they are. But the truth is all the art, literature and poetry in the world is just someone's opinion. It's not truth and never will be. So relying on these as sources of some hidden truth is a flawed methodology. Therefore your conclusions do not have to be accepted, or even debated for that matter.

The thing is, with this site a lot of the evidence comes from self realization, experience if you will. It's not so much an opinion as it is subjective truth.

Example: when you kick a dog it will bite you, so you shouldn't kick dogs. treat them nicely

Now, as mundane as it may seem, maybe there is no proof to the reader that kicking a dog will result in a bite. How do you prove that though? The reader has to either assume that kicking a dog will result in a bite, or try it out and see for himself.

 

[Pook]

I was doing work on a publication and came across this:

The first society was between man and wife, which gave beginning to that between parents and children, to which, in time, that between master and servant came to be added. And though all these might, and commonly did, meet together, and make up but one family, wherein the master or mistress of it had some sort of rule proper to a family, each of these, or all together, came short of "political society," as we shall see if we consider the different ends, ties, and bounds of each of these.

This is John Locke from Two Treatises of Government (from the SECOND treatise).

Conjugal society is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman, and though it consist chiefly in such a communion and right in one another's bodies as is necessary to its chief end, procreation, yet it draws with it mutual support and assistance, and a communion of interests too, as necessary not only to unite their care and affection, but also necessary to their common offspring, who have a right to be nourished and maintained by them till they are able to provide for themselves.

Locke is saying that sexuality is the basis for society.

The society betwixt parents and children, and the distinct rights and powers belonging respectively to them, I have treated of so largely in the foregoing chapter that I shall not here need to say anything of it; and I think it is plain that it is far different from a politic society.

Locke goes on and on.

How ironic! In order to discover the Rights of Man, Locke had to study sexuality.

This just proves a critical point. Locke looked at sexuality first and then came up with political theory. Feminists and gender theorists are backwards: they start with political theory and look at sexuality second.

Am I chanting 'poetic' truths now, Shortimer? What is amazing is that there is commentary on sexuality in all sorts of places. But it is clear: Locke could not come to his conclusions if he did not study sexuality. He places society as the harmony of sexuality.

This has not come up at all during the marriage/sexuality debates. Since every faction is in full agreement with Locke, I wonder what happens when this comes to light...

 

[NMMWCR]

A (very) brief economics primer

Economists recognize precisely four kinds of resources:

1. Land
2. Labor
3. Capital
4. Entrepeneurship

Land is the category for physical resources as most people think of them, the rocks and black goo that lie about without value until transformed

Labor is the category for the sweat and muscle and time that go into converting Land into useful things

Capital is the category for tools and machinery. Interestingly (interesting to economists, that is), capital is a resource that exists only as the result of prior Entrepeneurship. It is the accumulation of wealth that reduces the need for Labor.

Entrepeneurship is the category for the creativity and risk taking that must be a part of the production of anything of value.


Environmentalists are in a snit because Land represents a resource class that exists in a finite amount. There are only so many rocks, and only so many barrels of black goo.

Labor, Capital, and Entrepeneurship are all variable resources. We have the choice to possess more or less of any of the above and to substitute freely among the three. Sexuality could thus be taken to an entrepeneurial resource. It is the process by which we increase the labor pool, exchanging a portion of our Capital for additional Labor!


But does increasing the labor pool further deplete the finite resources in the Land category? A linear analysis of the problem would seem to indicate that this is so. However, the historical record shows that the inflation adjusted price for all minerals, ores, and commodities (except for Tungsten) has been declining for centuries. John Malthus would have been perplexed. Or perhaps he would have invested in Tungsten mines, oh how blessed art thou ancient Wolfram...


So far, there has been sufficient creativity, and accumulation of capital resources to overcome every resource challenge presented to our humble race. (And even enough surplus of same to allow an acceleration in our meager abilities.) The challenges of the coming centuries are certainly great. Water, oil, and food (Land) threaten to become ever more scarce. The current wisdom on how to respond to these problems is to substitute as much Capital for Labor as possible. "Surely it will be better for fewer people to have more resources, than for more to have fewer," they declare!

This is a bold an innovative approach. For thousands of years, mankind has spread and grown and increased, all to its betterment. A very radical innovation is being tried on for size all across the globe. It is yet to be seen whether this is wise. But that is the nature of the economic engine of progress. Risks must be taken. Some will prove to be poorly chosen. We will not know for decades whether the right choice has been made. Make no mistake, this avenue must be explored. Even in loss and decline, there is much to be learned. Much wisdom to be accumulated and added to the tools that we use to collectively advance.

I am unconvinced that I should rail against a possible threat of population decline. If such can even be declared to be a genuine problem (I lack psychic powers such as needed to forsee such a future), it is but one of many mutually exclusive problems that must be addressed. Why not this problem, now? This era has become the one to explore Capital for Labor substitution. It is but the final exploration of the concepts behind the Industrial Revolution, that has gained us so much. Our industrial society must explore the limits of its productivity to determine the appropriate mix of resource classes relative to preferences. I have faith that the markets will deliver the appropriate verdict.

 

[Nocturnal]

Something I realized in my economics class the other day:

If the world stayed the same, inflation would adjust and relative price etc would be the same. Basically growth must be compensated for by decreasing the value of money, so you can pay for the growth. How do you get growth without inflation? Technology.

Does technology historically get better of long periods of time, or worse?

Thought so . Basically with better technology, you have more resources (and more growth) because you can be EFFICIENT. In general, the only thing that really makes things cheaper is by more efficient manufacturing & distribution.

If I recall correctly, 2/3 (maybe it was 3/4) of business expenses are wages. This means people are a major resource. As long as we don't run out of people, and technology gets better, we'll be set. Eventually technology will make physical goods extremely cheap and easy to harvest in comparison to wages.

I hope that all made sense... I think I went back and forth a little though.

 

[PuertoRican_Lover]

Don't worry too much about the declining birth rate...The warmongering devils who want to rule the earth will kill a few billion of us. .Lets see…hhmmmm… who has the most nuclear weapons...US, Russia, Israel, Britain, France (European dominated countries) and a few others countries have some, but they have to few and too little missile capacity to make an world impact!

Do you notice how those in power (political and economic) and who control the resources of the earth always talk about how there is 'too many' people on the planet and how we need to eradicate 80% of the them!

Alsp, ‘Aids’ is a man-made disease that was purposely created for depopulation of the earth and spread to Africa - Look in your congressional record under the Senate Appropriations subcomitte hearings under 'biological and chemical' warfare - June 9, 1969 - they (military generals and others) were asking for ten million dollars to create a virus that would destroy the immune system!!!! Go to your library and find out yourself!!

Ten years later 'Aids' shows up - it was given under the 'disguise' of helping others through vaccines! Guess where Africa gets it's vaccines from? America! And guess where many scientific laboratories are that experiment with these deadly viruses and have access to many monkeys for their experiments - Africa!

This was a 'created' and purposely distributed disease!!!

With manufactured (purposely created) wars and man-made diseases, the declining birthrate is the least of our concerns!

Reference the book "Emerging Viruses by Leonard Horowitz!

Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola: Nature, Accident or Intentional? by Leonard G. Horowitz, W. John Martin (Hardcover - July 1996)

 

[ShortTimer]

Originally posted by Pook
Am I chanting 'poetic' truths now, Shortimer? What is amazing is that there is commentary on sexuality in all sorts of places. But it is clear: Locke could not come to his conclusions if he did not study sexuality.

No, you're not chanting, but that's because the Locke you quoted was actually arguing a point. A Shakespeare play may be more entertaining, but the "dry" (well dry to some) argumentative method is more revealing and reliable.

Of course Locke had to study all of society and of course sexuality is a part of it. I would never disagree that harmony between men and women (or any two groups for that matter) is a good idea for any society.

So, anyway, give a shot to my other question: "what would a health sexuality look like?" How about in a individual or in a society or both? Or even start with a better one "what is sexuality?"

 

[ShortTimer]

Originally posted by PuertoRican_Lover
‘Aids’ is a man-made disease that was purposely created for depopulation of the earth and spread to Africa - Look in your congressional record under the Senate Appropriations subcomitte hearings under 'biological and chemical' warfare - June 9, 1969 - they (military generals and others) were asking for ten million dollars to create a virus that would destroy the immune system!!!! Go to your library and find out yourself!!

Ten years later 'Aids' shows up - it was given under the 'disguise' of helping others through vaccines! Guess where Africa gets it's vaccines from? America! And guess where many scientific laboratories are that experiment with these deadly viruses and have access to many monkeys for their experiments - Africa!

This was a 'created' and purposely distributed disease!!!

Actually, the aliens that crashed at Roswell helped us to create it. In any event, you've learned too much of the truth PRL and the Technocracy cannot allow that. Expect men with black hats and mirror shades to arrive at your door in 24 to 48 hours for a little... re-education.

One world, one truth, one reality.

Love,
Secret Agent John Courage
Panopticon Control

 

[PuertoRican_Lover]

Short Timer, I tried to bring the discussion towards the topic of sexuality and the distortion thereof, but comments have gone off course. Some of the posters have focused on it's distortion, because of Pook's focus on the declining birth rate as an indicator that something within our 'sexuality' has been changed or corrupted, whether by design or by choice, in the last few decades.

The standard dictionary definition is...

sex·u·al·i·ty

sex·u·al·i·ty (sek´sh?-al?i-te) noun

1. The condition of being characterized and distinguished by sex.

2. Concern with or interest in sexual activity.

3. Sexual character or potency.


sex

sex (seks) noun

1.a. The property or quality by which organisms are classified as female or male on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions. b. Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, of this classification.

2.Females or males considered as a group.

3.The condition or character of being female or male; the physiological, functional, and psychological differences that distinguish the female and the male. See Usage Note at gender.

4.The sexual urge or instinct as it manifests itself in behavior.

5.Sexual intercourse.

6.The genitalia.


Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

 

[PuertoRican_Lover]

Originally posted by ShortTimer
Actually, the aliens that crashed at Roswell helped us to create it. In any event, you've learned too much of the truth PRL and the Technocracy cannot allow that. Expect men with black hats and mirror shades to arrive at your door in 24 to 48 hours for a little... re-education.

One world, one truth, one reality.

Love,
Secret Agent John Courage
Panopticon Control

Haha, good one Short Timer - I think they (alien forces) reside at Fort Detrick, Marlland, and they wear lab coats and look exactly like humans, who were schooled at our top universities!

They work under the auspices of three letter agencies -CIA, NSA, MIA, etc and many work in the Pentagon too! So you do know about them because you are one of them. Why not share some more info with us, since you have the inside sccop?

Since America has the largest stockpile of chemical and biological weapons on the planet, and have been housing them fpr the last 80 years, I think these aliens are extremely loyal to us!

Oh yeah, they work and went before our congress too, since it is in the congressional record!

 

[Crotch Sniffer]

Originally posted by Pook
The reason why I'm becoming more and more shy about posting is the bizzarre responses I get. At first, it was something of deja vu. I'd post that Don Juan is a mindset, not a technique calculus and get the usual objections. My favorite one was the feminism post and the guy mad that I had a post against feminsm. "I'll never read you again!" Um.... OK! How does it affect me if you like or dislike my posts, or not even read them?

Nice. Shows that you dont let other peoples hangups affect your actions.

Originally posted by Pook
Ever since last fall, you've seen no tips posts from me. I'm still writing them (probably a couple hundred pages so far), but they stay on my computer. Why can't Atlas shrug? To those who think I'm here only to stroke my ego, why hold the posts? And to those who think I'm arrogant, why am I so quiet? And to you pook baiters, I'm taking away your nutrients so you leeches will starve. I'm here to help myself and exchange ideas; I have absolutely no interest in 'forum fame' or anything like that. I was posting before there was a DJ Bible. I was posting before and after 'pook' was talked about.?

WTF happened here? You are supposed to be above the foolishness! If you are truly here to share ideas and not defend your ego, then why withhold the information? Why are you letting these punks affect your actions? Totally contradicts what you said earlier...apparently these nay-sayers are getting to you!

Dude just quit this whining of yours and post your archives already. Oh wait..that wasnt dramatic enough for you. Please Pook PLEEEAAAASSSEEE post your awsome tips! We are lost little bastards without you! If you dont post I will have to resort to masturbating with sandpaper again...ARRRGGGHHH!!!

Steering back to the topic at hand...

Birth rates are declining because we are experiencing so much guilt when it comes to sex. And not without reason. Pvssy was once a magical happy place to stick your penis. Now it is a deathtrap, riddled with fatal diseases and the possibility of unwanted pregnancy. This is just one of the factors in sexual distortion. In order to figure out the source of the distortion, we have to define sexuality. I will take a stab at this...

Sexuality = Duality that creates life.

We have stripped the creation out of sexuality in favor of the pleasure factor. The hedonistic individualists of modern society fear procreation almost as much as they fear a death sentence! "I cant have kids or my life will be over!" Folks nowadays are beginning to value career and personal affluence over family.

This is what the real problem is IMHO. You can quote philsophers and lengthy volumes of literature till the cows turn to fertilizer, but I really believe this is much simpler than we are making it out to be.

 

[prosemont]

Walt Whitman, an expert on the matter, might have said it best:

Urge and urge and urge...
Always the procreant urge of the world...
Out of the dimness opposite equals advance...
Always substance and increase...
Always a knit of identity...
Always distinction...
Always a breed of life.

 

[PuertoRican_Lover]

Originally posted by Crotch Sniffer
Sexuality = Duality that creates life.

We have stripped the creation out of sexuality in favor of the pleasure factor. The hedonistic individualists of modern society fear procreation almost as much as they fear a death sentence! "I cant have kids or my life will be over!" Folks nowadays are beginning to value career and personal affluence over family....

this is much simpler than we are making it out to be.

I like your definition of seuality, I really do - I didn't think such simple profundity can come from a 'crotch sniffer'! You proved me wrong!! In four words you summed it up, in what essays of writings would only confuse.

Sex and the vagina now brings forth death when it was naturally created to bring forth life. Something is wrong! As I stated before, the thing that is wrong is that sex has become sought for its' pleasure seeking qualities and not for its' intended purpose - procreation and to unite and bond husband/wife and family!!

The root of this sexual distortion lies in the fag/hor/feminist agenda of the last 40 years!