And in rich countries, who are the people still having many children? The poor, uneducated, rural, religious/conservative segments of the population, who believe in some way or another that raising a child struggling in poverty is preferable to not having children at all.
Sounds like a pretty big cope. Sex isn’t about cumming. It’s about emotional connection with another human being. Being unable to get fulfillment of this basic human need is sad and lonely. This is why fleshlights have a stigma that beating your bishop the old fashioned way doesn’t - every healthy teenaged boy spanks it on the reg. But actually purchasing a device speaks to a level of hopelessness at obtaining actual sex that is sad, which implies a failure to be attractive, which is itself unattractive.
If that were true, we would expect richer countries to have higher birth rates. Instead, we see roughly the opposite trend. The richer a country gets, typically, the lower the birth rate. You can’t tell me that a teacher and a data entry clerk in Virginia are less economically capable of raising children than subsistence farmers in Malawi, no matter how high the rent in Virginia is.
If you want to see high income places with high birth rates, then you end up in very traditional/religious cultures, like Mormons and the Arab petro-states, where women face extremely high cultural pressure (if not force/violence) to be child-bearers.
Some books I enjoyed when I was a kid that didn’t fit the trips above:
I’d really like to see the evidence for this statement, since it really seems like this trend is just an extension of the phenomenon we see in poorer countries: when you give women education, opportunities, and birth control, fewer of them will have children. It stands to reason that the more education, the more opportunities available, and the more freely accessible birth control is, the fewer women will have children.
Me, but I have no dogs and don’t play video games.
This seems true only on short time scales, and in corporate work structures. On long time scales and with more collaborative, voluntary work structures, a group of people working together and supporting each other will almost certainly outperform a disorganized collection of non-communicative individuals. We can see this is true because, yaknow, society exists.
You would be categorized in the study as “childless” - wanting children but being unable to have them - and thus would not be part of the headline statistic.
Thanks I hate it.
Look up “polarizing” as a dating strategy. You don’t have to attract everyone. Just the people who are into what you’re into.
I’m confused as to what your objection is.
Not really. I’d say that most fetishes heavily favor one gender or another.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Who said it isn’t working?
No, but a lot of women are really into giving pleasure to their partners, whatever that might entail (within boundaries). So if a guy is really into feet and shows it, there’s a decent chance his partner will get off on indulging his fetish. Plus, I assume foot fetishists give the best foot massages.
This looks neat. I imagine it would feel weird after riding a fixed saddle all my life. My main concern would be durability - how well does this hold up after cycling 1000 miles? Or when it gets thrown down in the mud 100 times, or shoved in a car trunk 100 more? There are a lot of moving parts, so my best guess is that it would break relatively quickly.
Cup the balls, glide the buttocks.
In your language, we would expect people in the first sentence to revert to K type parents. If they do not, they simply fall into the category described by your second sentence.