Is Giving Birth Like Having a Massive Cock Inside You?
- Thread starter dingdong
- Start date
What you have to remember is that women are drama queens. They say that childbirth is painful, yet they keep poopin out babies. In any situation, a woman will complain. Women will bitch about having nothing to bitch about. They sit at home on their asses (which are mostly huge), an make our lives miserable. Then they want a child, knowing god damn good and well what they are in for, and you guessed it......bitch about it. Then, a light goes on in their head, they actually feel like their lives are complete...........boom they ask for another child. How bad can ite be??? Avagina is te most abused thing in the world. You can marry a bitch out of high school, who is actually a virgin, or meet someone in their thirties who has been with every Tom, Dick, And Harry on the planet......and use the excuse "I am not a whore, I "just was trying to find myself". Well, if you equate finding yourself to scewing hundreds of men, you SHOULD be destined to a life of pain, as in childbirth. I have been with only two women in my life, that is my first wife. Then my second. Funny thing is my second wife.....who is no angel, says I am the best she has ever enountered. So die you dirty bitches...........DIE!!!!!!!
nudeyorker
Admired Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2006
- Posts
- 22,742
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 855
- Points
- 208
- Location
- NYC/Honolulu
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
You don't have to sell me I'm still scared from being the coach!
I think somebody needs to get out of the cabin sometimes and breath some fresh air :haha:
D_Tintagel_Demondong
Sexy Member
Charming!
You are so fucking creepy, you know that? I knew that you'd bring your 'pronatalist' agenda into this thread. You wantonly ignore the population crisis, and the damage that humans are doing to the earth, and society, from overpopulation. I have no clue what caused you to be sexually aroused by overpopulation (it's the strangest kink that I've ever heard of), but it's a problem, not an asset. As for your post, ask any women who has given birth if it turned them on. Maybe you'll get a reality check, or a much-deserved slap on the face.
pronatalist
Sexy Member
In answer to your questions/concerns, What "overpopulation?" "Overpopulation" is a values judgement that implies that some people are unnecessary, redundant, or expendible, something that quite many people just do not believe.
Humans are an asset, or ought to be. Would be, if we behaved more like we were actually "civilized" as we often claim to be. Have you never seen the book, "The Ultimate Resource" by Julian Simon? What's the "ultimate resource?" Why humans, but of course. I don't think he means that humans are to be regarded as just a mere commodity or "resource," but rather, much more an asset than a "problem."
Is natural human population growth supposed to be drying boring numbers statistics? Maybe to some demographers and population control freaks. But there's a whole another side to consider. Human population growth is beautiful, like a flower unfolding, so many more people around to enjoy life. So many families enjoying having children. So many profits for birthday card manufacturers and stores. So many people around the world enjoying sex. Have you so little imagination? Would it be better, if humans were dying off like flies? Why all the "global whining," about what naturally benefits so many people?
Population crisis? Isn't that like a really old and passé term? I get so tired of liberals trying to manufacture phony crises, as if to say, "My cause is bigger than your cause, so kindly excuse me as I cut to the front of the line." To which I would be inclined to respond, "Uh, excuse me! Your vain delusions have no bearing here."
Of course, maybe women aren't supposed to get any "pleasure" from birthing a baby? That's just too weird an idea for some closed minds to grasp. But then, isn't that nearly as weird an idea, as the idea that women aren't supposed to "move" when having sex? The man is supposed to do all the "work?" Well probably the latter idea went out the window some decades ago? Maybe the former idea may take a little longer. But I have read on some website, the claim that some women actually feel some "pleasure" from birthing a baby. Imagine if "too many" horny humans find they need to be pushing out their babies, almost as much as to be enjoying sex all the time? So much for easing your imagined "population crisis?" Better plan then to "scoot over" all the more, and find or make some place for the many billions more to come.
D_Tintagel_Demondong
Sexy Member
In the 80's the Earth had 5 billion people. Since it now has 6 billion, did it have a 1 billion population deficit back then? What is the ideal population? Should people be standing shoulder to shoulder. Should everyone be alotted 3 square feet of ground?
Asbestos and mercury are also resources, but that doesn't mean that they are good for you. There is a time and a place for everything. Humans are not an asset--at least not more than any other animal. Did the earth suffer greatly when the Neaderthals died out? Luckily, us Cro-Magnons survived the holocene extinction event, only to start destroying the biosphere (which could cuase the extinction of half of all species on earth in the next 100 years).
Yes, yes. We know this sort of thing gets you off. Let's all have a hot circle jerk while talking about suburban sprawl and lactation and baby strollers and minivans and playgrounds and cribs. Fucking hot! Oh, I forgot birthday cards!
Do you really think that smog, oil spills, landfills, sewage, greenhouse gasses, etc are natural. Do you think that these biproducts of human existance are good for the earth? Maybe you should spend less time imagining exploding populations and more time just looking around your neighborhood.
Is there a correlation here? I don't see one. Do you not get the fact that this thread wasn't so much about a woman experiencing sexual pleasure during childbirth as it was just some kinky guy writing about his kinky fantasy? I'm sure that he wishes it were true that women have orgasms while pushing out a baby, but I'm kinda thinking that they don't.
"But I have read on some website." Where? Citation please. You really can't back any of your claims because they are too ridiculous. You should keep your dangerous fantasies in your head. That is unless you think your fantasies are more important than problems like lack of fresh water, deforestation, high infant mortality rates, starvation, low life expectancy, increased crime, pollution, and the thousands of other problems that overpopulation creates.
</trollfeeding>
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions?
sneaks, babe - I'm not entirely sure - but I think the good Captain may have just disproved your sig. Perhaps not in the way he intended...
(I'm just playing, Capt. C :wink
(I'm just playing, Capt. C :wink
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2006
- Posts
- 5,412
- Media
- 79
- Likes
- 4,499
- Points
- 358
- Location
- England (United Kingdom)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
The Dragon
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2006
- Posts
- 5,412
- Media
- 79
- Likes
- 4,499
- Points
- 358
- Location
- England (United Kingdom)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Posts
- 241
- Media
- 15
- Likes
- 180
- Points
- 388
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Female
Ohhh pronatalist, where do I begin.
Humans, are.. an asset? HAHAHA. We overpopulate this earth and destroy natural resources, all the while killing plants and animals alike. Why? So our race can prosper?
Overpopulation is defined as [SIZE=-1]a depletion of resources that occur when too many living things inhabit an ecosystem[/SIZE]. You don't understand the fact that there are starving COUNTRIES on this earth because there are not resources to feed them all? I think that is a qualification for overpopulation. With science and new-aged medicine keeping people alive much longer than ever, the birth rate in some countries DOUBLES that of the death rate. Our race is growing exponentially, unfortunately, our planet is not. If there is no such thing, why is (or was? Not too sure anymore) there a regulation in China that they can only have one child? Why is it so often little girls are found left on the streets because their family is going to attempt to conceive again, to have a boy?
It takes a naive asshole like yourself to believe that humans are simply a superior species, in regards to other living things. But, as you said, apparently we're the assets to this planet. The other species are merely here for our entertainment. Let's kill every non-human life form at will. (Insert eye-roll here.)
And as for women finding having birth erotic and pleasurable? That has nothing to do with the scenarios you also mentioned (women not moving during sex, men doing the work.) How would you know? By reading? I can also read in places bigfoot was spotted in Hollywood last night. Birth is beautiful, but pleasurable? I think not. The pure notion of that idea is just weird. You, sir, are JUST PLAIN WEIRD.
Humans, are.. an asset? HAHAHA. We overpopulate this earth and destroy natural resources, all the while killing plants and animals alike. Why? So our race can prosper?
Overpopulation is defined as [SIZE=-1]a depletion of resources that occur when too many living things inhabit an ecosystem[/SIZE]. You don't understand the fact that there are starving COUNTRIES on this earth because there are not resources to feed them all? I think that is a qualification for overpopulation. With science and new-aged medicine keeping people alive much longer than ever, the birth rate in some countries DOUBLES that of the death rate. Our race is growing exponentially, unfortunately, our planet is not. If there is no such thing, why is (or was? Not too sure anymore) there a regulation in China that they can only have one child? Why is it so often little girls are found left on the streets because their family is going to attempt to conceive again, to have a boy?
It takes a naive asshole like yourself to believe that humans are simply a superior species, in regards to other living things. But, as you said, apparently we're the assets to this planet. The other species are merely here for our entertainment. Let's kill every non-human life form at will. (Insert eye-roll here.)
And as for women finding having birth erotic and pleasurable? That has nothing to do with the scenarios you also mentioned (women not moving during sex, men doing the work.) How would you know? By reading? I can also read in places bigfoot was spotted in Hollywood last night. Birth is beautiful, but pleasurable? I think not. The pure notion of that idea is just weird. You, sir, are JUST PLAIN WEIRD.
pronatalist
Sexy Member
As human populations naturally grow, why not "scoot over" a bit and make place for them/us/our children?
Part 1 of 3:
Sorry I couldn't seem to find enough time to reply sooner.
Well perhaps we did have a "population deficit." That's a very likely reason why human populations grow, because the human race evidently isn't big enough yet. It does make more sense to compare with the future, rather than the past, in the area of "ideal population size," because the past is gone and outdated, and the human race was started by God as only 2 people, which obviously isn't big enough.
But to suggest a population "deficit" is to somewhat miss the point. If the 1980s Earth was to "suddenly" find the population having leaped to 6 billion, it might have been "a bit much" back then, but not so much now. As while human populations grow, so too, grows the number of potential parents to raise all the children. And the necessary technology. So today's world is more prepared for 6 billion, than the 1980s world. We are into another generation of parents, and this generations is larger, so it's quite understandable that the overall numbers of people, and numbers of children we might be collectively having, should be larger.
What is the ideal population? Ever hear of the Utilitarian Principle? It says that often the best thing to do, is that which most benefits the most people. I am not alone in noticing, that a larger population would benefit more people, simply by there being more people around, to experience life, as some website also made the population implication of it. So I find that any "optimum" or "ideal"-sized human population, wouldn't be small and pidly, but more on the order of being or naturally becoming, "nearly as large as possible." Where are we going to put all the "burgeoning billions?" What a stupid question, that people "educated beyond their intelligence tend to worry about." Even the "uneducated," probably can figure out the "obvious" answer to that concern. Why not put them in between all the people already living? A naturally vaster and denser human population, helps the nations and the planet to hold quite a lot more people. Simple logical people seem to be able to figure it out, but the population phobics seem to resist such "obvious" answers.
Somewhere I read of this story. Some village in Africa, was warned by the "family planners," that at their current rate, they would double their numbers in just 25 years. To which they all started clapping. Whoops! Somebody forgot to tell them, that or why certain Western contraceptive imperilists, claim that growing human numbers are "bad."
Come on, think about it logically. Are these "unlearned" people just completely stupid? Surely village elders, remember a time when there wasn't quite so many people, and notice the village swelling with youth, and growing larger, and closer to other similarly swelling villages. But is there really anything wrong with the villages growing bigger and closer together, if the people in the other villages are also friendly? I don't think so. I would rather see the land put to better human-friendly use. I commend the human race for working together, to mutually help enlarge everybody's numbers, for the greater good of the many. That's what happens when people work together. Quite often, everybody benefits.
Some poster on another forum, talked about villages in Africa, growing into small towns, haphazardly, with poor or little planning for growth, while in India supposedly, they better plan for the growth. Why aren't more people talking about that issue? As a pro-life, pro-human pronatalist, I would prefer that we more invite and plan for the growth, and not foolishly resist "what must be."
BTW, your info is out-of-date. The official global population estimate, is 6.7 billion people now. And factoring in the "undercounting" that some people suspect, and we then round now, not to 6 billion, but to 7 or 7.5 billion or so.
Should people be standing shoulder-to-shoulder? Interesting that you bring that up, as since the planet isn't getting any bigger, we find that human bodies do indeed need to be getting closer together, at least on the global scale. My introduction to the population issue, would seem to be some liberal stupid college textbook, that had a typical unrelated picture of some "crowd" of people, and a caption suggesting that at current rates, it may not be long before we all reach "standing room only conditions." They also had a picture of "baby 5 billion." How do libtards miss such "obvious" answers? Yes, that is the direction we need to be growing, towards a more heavily-populated and denser world population. I have long advocated that China and India, and all nations, encourage large families, and deliberately populate themselves up denser and denser, so as to do their part to help the planet hold more and more people. All countries have a duty to, and should be encouraged to explore how to properly populate themselves denser, especially by their natural increasetheir very own children.
Before my "introduction," I hadn't really thought about the population issue so much. Apparently "polite company" people, don't really dwell so much upon "population" matters, and so it naturally seems that yeah, maybe world population may be a bit on the "large" size maybe, but people die and people are born every day. I don't think I really realized so much that world population isn't at all "static" in population size, and has been continually growing since "in the beginning God created." Now it seems, that human births naturally outnumber or significantly outpace deaths, and go the human race is naturally gaining ground, naturally progressing towards enlarging its numbers. So the logical response would be to explore how humans indeed can populate denser. Presumably, it's probably going to take the building of additional suburbs, more cities and towns, to hold us all. I didn't find that pattern "frightening" as such "scare tactics" intend, but thought it rather cool that there's so many people and that so many people would be naturally enjoying having so many babies. With such a "huge" and naturally-rising world population, must be quite a lot of people out there enjoying natural sex. Besides, look around. The world's not "crowded." There can be found, or made, lots of room for lots more people.
Now why do I say, "nearly as large as possible?" Well because I do think people should be allotted more than 3 square feet. What do ridiculous future extrapolations have to do with anything anyway? I think people need more like 1000 square feet or 100 square meters. But this isn't really a problem within the forseeable future anyway. And do people forget that there's a vertical dimension? If ever there came to be so many people, which is seriously rather unlikely for quite many practical and logical reasons, why not stack people into the sky into highrises?
pronatalist
Sexy Member
As human populations naturally grow, why not "scoot over" a bit and make place for them/us/our children?
Part 2 of 3:
Let's see, what did they use asbestos for? A useful insulator that withstands high heat? I think the dangers of asbestos have been exxagerated. Not all asbestos is so harmful. Breathing clouds of most any dust, probably isn't good for you. Stirring up the dust of dusty roads, probably isn't so good. Even your car engine air filter could be adversely affected. Asbestos isn't harmful, when not converted into clouds of dust to be breathed. So some of that old asbestos, it probably is best, just to leave it be alone. Now some years ago, I hear some liberal talk claiming the fiberglass insulation in our homes, could be like asbestos and not so good for you. Oh really? How inconvenient that somebody wants to attack, what's in most everybody's homes. Oh, never mind that we probably wore work gloves and maybe a light breathing mask, putting it in? Never mind how ridiculously high home heating oil and natural gas is? What do such libtards suggest instead? Something even less convenient and more expensive? Whatever insulates the hull of the starship Enterprise, on Star Trek, probably isn't even available yet. Even their windows don't sweat from condensation, and yet think how chilly cold outer space is. Of course, we wouldn't really see stars whizzing by out the windows, with bright lights turned on in the room, but then, TV isn't quite so real anyway.
Mercury is useful in its proper place. Mercury can be found in some old light switches, and in furnace thermostats. Mercury makes for some of the longest-lasting switches, because, it handly avoids oxidizing contacts. Instead of a firm "snap" of a switch, a mercury switch uses gravity, to bring the liquid mercury in contact with the electrical contacts, and I think the mercury is always vacuum-sealed in a small glass bulb. Completely harmless in that form. But probably not the best thing to toss into the trash, or to be smashing with a hammer upon replacing those old switches and such.
And do I want to "rain on somebody's parade," sure why not? Those compact florescent lights that enviro-wackos have been so pushing and trying to force us to use, they have mercury in them, or so they say. I hear it's a nasty hazard, when they somehow manage to get broken. And again I cry, "Where's the LED replacements?" We see LED lights popping up all over the place, now that they have "bright" LEDs. In traffic signals, and on truck and car lights. So why can't I buy LED incandescent light bulb replacements for my home? I would love to be free of forever changing light bulbs, and finally get some lights that should last a lifetime. LEDs are more efficient than compact florescents, and they last longer. And I have read complaints of compact florescents not lasting so long, popping prematurely like the incandescent bulbs, apparently they are suffering the same "Made in China" cheap crap syndrome, as a lot of other stuff Made-In-China. BTW, LED stands for Light Emitting Diode.
That's a common problem I run into with the population phobics. Clinging to a strange belief, that humans are no better or no more special, than other animals. Funny thing for a human to say. Can nobody see the "obvious" huge conflict-of-interest for humans to denigrate their own race?
And weren't Adam & Eve commanded something or other, to tend the Garden? Some preacher said that meant, to push out the borders of the Garden, to fill the entire Earth. That suggests that nature suffers, when human populations are too small. Nature is neglected, becomes overgrown, and then erupts sometimes in some fairly major natural forest firestorms that may consume much of the forests sometimes. Now I'm not saying that some remote and unpopulated areas of nature can't still be such natural "wild" wilderness, nor that some remote and inaccessible natural forest fires shouldn't be left to grow naturally and unchallenged, during normal sometimes dry summers. What I wish to say, it that it's wrong to portray humans as being "parasitic" upon nature. It would be more accurate to say, that humans enjoy more of a "symbiotic" relationship with nature, in that both humans and nature benefits from the presence of humans. And I see in nature, that life naturally spreads to fill most every available niche. So why can't humans enjoy that natural benefit as well?
Why do you so try to profane, what so many people apparently take more seriously than that? Naturally growing families generally aren't much into "kinky" things like "circle jerks." They often already limit natural human sex, to its proper semi-private place. But do not people see, that the world does sort of face, sort of what might be called, a naturally-growing "virtual global orgy?" Behind "closed doors" and the walls of people's homes, more and more people are enjoying sex and reproducing, inside of most every house, apartment, condo, grass hut, overcrowded shantytown, crowded refugee camp, or wherever people happen to live. As cities grow, and gain more people, largely from people depopulating the countryside, but perhaps somewhat from natural population growth as well, surely even more babies should naturally be expected. As more children grow to puberty and powerful natural reproductive urges awaken, they soon find place for "sexual relief," in reproducing still more children. I advocate personal responsibility, and the proper formation of strong and stable families, the basic building blocks of any healthy society. But I do not advocate at all, any unnatural and perverse form of pushing rampant contraceptive potions and poisons, nor the stupid mad rush to impose population "control" that the populous people simply do not want.
Interesting you mention birthday cards. Why do we celebrate birth-days anyway? Could it be, that most people naturally think "births" are a good thing? I generally don't hear of people celebrating "death"-days.
And I really don't understand your denigrating comments about baby strollers and playgrounds and such. Watch the YouTube video, "The Stork is a bird of war," and see if mothers and babies and babystrollers aren't cool, at least in the minds of many people? Babies and babystrollers and babystuff everywhere, in that video. (Don't forget to read my comments below the video.)
I have taken my little nephews to a couple of local Church playgrounds, and much of the time, there's hardly anybody else there. Where's all the "overflowing overpopulation" of which you seem to fear? Playgrounds ought to have more children playing in them. I took the older nephew to a couple of Walks for Life, and he enjoyed coming with me. The first time, he rode the walk in a stroller.
Similar threads
