Official: Indian Men Have Small Penises

[Tattooed Goddess]

"Effective" "birth control" hinders proper enjoyment of natural sex.​

American condoms have to be about as thin as possible, lest people wouldn't use them. Or so I have heard. No wonder they break, leak, slip off, don't fit so well, shred, etc.

Just goes to show the folly of experimental, anti-life contraception. To make condoms truly effective, they would probably have to be thick like a tire, and very tight. Of course, they wouldn't work then, as that would remove most of the pleasure from sex, if sex is even still possible. And Indian condoms are even thinner than ours?

Well what's the thinnest condoms of all? No condom used. Zero thickness. Direct contact or natural "bareback" sex. So they invented the nasty experimental "the pill." But that has side-effects as well, and many people complain that it messes them up and they can't use it either.

Actually, most people in India didn't use any contraception until duped into Western "contraceptive imperilism" very recently. So failing condoms may not be the only explanation for 1.1 billion people in India. Many of them still do not believe in or find any good reason for practicing any form of "birth control." With most babies surviving and reaching adulthood, to have still more babies, it shouldn't be surprising that so many people now get to experience life.

The pill is so bad.....its staved off my menstrual cycle for over 4 years to keep me from bleeding practically to death. I have all sorts of problems in the blessed womb that without it i'd probably have killed myself a long time ago!

 

[pronatalist]

It's unfortunate that we don't have a nice place, another planet perhaps, where your theories can be put to the test and we can see exactly what a nice place it would be to live. Or is that irrlevant? Is the only relevance that you are fulfilling God's commandment?

Remember 'Noah's Arc' when God commanded Noah to save the animals, I suppose you would have said 'NO God we need more human babies. They are happy to come to life.'

You think I am just "making it up?" That my pro-life, pro-population view is "peculiar?" Most all religions promote large families. Even some atheists claim that human population growth helps promote "progress" for the human race. Let's look at the Noah's Ark account, now that you mention it. 2 of each kind of animal. 2 dogs, 2 cats. But how many people? Just 2? No, there were 8 people on the Ark. Noah and his wife, Noah's 3 sons, and their 3 wives. And presumably, everybody who would have heeded Noah's warnings of God's impending judgement upon the world, would have been admitted, before that God had shut the door, and the rains descended. Why the bias towards humans? For one, it was a human that built the Ark. But I think it could imply much more, that human populations would ultimately naturally swell so large, as to finally start displacing some of the animals, even upon a huge vast planet.

Why do we need another planet? I read somewhere that only 7% of the world population, lives in countries where the population is not growing. Most of the world's people, live in countries where human populations are growing, and growing denser, all at the same time. It's largely driving technologies, that do so much, to make big city life, a lot more comfortable and livable, than it would have been in the past. What real choice do we have, but to go forward? World population is already growing far faster, than current technology could possibly relocate people to more worlds. What's even easier than packing people into spaceships and shuttling them off to find less hospitable worlds? How about "camping in your own backyard." Build the population arcologies, spaceships, supercities, or whatever, where the populous masses live already, then we don't need to "transport" them far. Where can we put the additional billions to come? The answer is right under our noses. Where we have always put them. In between all the people already living. By letting the people naturally populate denser and denser, so many more people can fit, well into the forseeable future. They say that about by the year 2008, half the world now lives in cities. If our future be more urban, then so be it. That's how it is then. So big cities must also be a suitable place for people to raise their "traditionally very large" families.

I read somewhere, the contraceptive pusher claim, that contraceptive usage must be expanded, just to keep up with population growth. Ha! But even that perpetuates the growth, allowing the numbers of fertile vaginas pushing out babies, to go on rising. As the numbers of people contracepting rises, so too, does population-proportionally, the numbers not using any "birth control" at all. And obviously, many people aren't even going to use any nasty contraceptives, until they have already had all, or more children, than they supposedly want. I think that many large families weren't originally planned that way, what happens, is that they just had their 4th child, and hardly even realize that their family is starting to get a bit "large," and they never seem to get around to selecting a "satisfactory" means of "birth control." Does half the world really use contraception, when they don't when "trying to conceive," and most people still have children? There seems to be quite many possibly bogus claims floating around, not being properly challenged. I advocate reducing contraceptive usage, as the numbers of women of childbearing age go right on rising naturally, and relax and let the human race ENLARGE its already "huge" numbers more naturally, and welcome and celebrate each and every precious and sacred human life. Let the world's baby booms persist and spread and grow into the predicted "Baby Blast" that supposedly will come, if contraceptive usage can't be duped into increasing from half to 75%.

Noah had no reason to kick out the animals out of the Ark, that God I think led to come by themselves, onto the Ark. At least the movie "Evan Almighty" got that part right. Evan must have known he wasn't "off his rocker," even if everybody else thought so, when supposedly wild animals started flocking to him, like he was their Savior or something. Because man had dominion already, and would easily win any future habitat challenge over the other animals. Besides, many animals are useful as food to feed humans. Some Creationalists think that the animals on the Ark were babies, and not full-size, that way they would fit eaiser, eat less, and there would be all the less manure to daily shovel outside to drop into the flood waters outside.

The real "experiment" would be what frightening unnatural force, could possibly challenge the natural "force of nature" that human reproduction is or is possibly becoming. Consider that the world now has around 3.5 billion human penises on it. A human penis, for every 10 acres of land on the planet. Surely that has got to have an effect on the biosphere, but apparently not one that nature objects, but seems in many respects, to actually welcome. Letting the human race expand naturally, is really the safest and most beautiful, and perhaps the easiest sale, option possibly available to humans. Humans are accused of adapting "too well" to our environment, making us something like the ultimate or most invasive and hardy "weed" in a sense. Well what if that is really our strength, and not so much a population-phobic perceived weakness?

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

So if your theory of: The more birthcontrol that is used the more other families to expand to make up for it. Good, you can have my 14 other children.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Actually, most people in India didn't use any contraception until duped into Western "contraceptive imperilism" very recently. So failing condoms may not be the only explanation for 1.1 billion people in India. Many of them still do not believe in or find any good reason for practicing any form of "birth control." With most babies surviving and reaching adulthood, to have still more babies, it shouldn't be surprising that so many people now get to experience life.

you , sir, are a true and substantial idiot.

Women are enslaved by natural biology... an argument against birth control is an argument For female disenfranchisement.

All the stats prove you wrong.

As birth rates fall, standards of living rise... Families with fewer children report far greater satisfaction with life.

Fewer children means that families can invest more in each child in the form of education and resources... which gives each child a richer, more impactful life.


Women having control over their reproductive biology is the single most important change in human society in 6 thousand years.
It enables women to have better, happier, and more productive lives.

Famine and pestilence and war are functions of resources inadequate to meet the needs of a population.

Limiting population eliminates a lot of suffering.



IF you are so in favor of "natural" living... then you should be aware that natural farming, and natural living can only support about HALF the current world population.

Ergo, your thesis, that more people is better, is simply drivel.

 

[pronatalist]

In order to dupe people to use contraceptives, they have to lower their effectiveness?​

Does not compute error.

Condoms are made thin so the dude can feel something to eventually orgasm. Or its pointless.

Pronatalist.....thirdworld countries without birthcontrol often have procedures called Menstural Aspiration......look it up. There have always been ways for women to not have babies if they don't want them.

Well there has long been the "no sex" and the "less often sex" methods, but apparently most people don't consider those very realistic. So much more preferable and natural, to welcome the prospect of a possibly large family. Thus, family sizes used to be typically large, until very recently, no thanks to the rampant contraceptive pushers.

At least the more natural? "no sex" and "less sex" options, have the advantage of avoiding many side-effects, the hyped virtue of "self-control," and the huge advantage of not funding the anti-life interests, and they are cheap enough for even the poorest populous masses, to afford, as there's nothing unnatural to have to buy.

But often at the arrival of the "family planning" pushers, people are embarrassed at their graphic descriptions or diagrams of sex, there is little or no real "demand" for "contraceptive services," and people often won't use condoms, because they actually want to get pregnant and want children. Children help make an otherwise dreary life, more bearable, and in many places of the world, there's still need for "farmhands" and "old age security." People often associate "family planning" with "dirty sex," like prostitution, for very good reason, if people would but associate the many links between easy, over-abundant contraceptives being pushed most everywhere, and promiscuity and other bad behaviors including even incorrect contraceptive usage.

Isn't it sort of curious, that condoms are so thin, as to be almost transparent. Are balloons so transparent? Are doctors gloves so transparent? That might give us a hint, that a condom may not necessary be so "effective" anyway, so why even bother with the shoddy experimental contraceptives anyway? Know why there is such a bewildering array of contraceptive "options?" Come on, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. It's obviously because every other method before has been found to be faulty or shoddy, so they come up with ever more methods. Why can't they ever find the right method? Because humans were never designed to use any "birth control." Even a newspaper cartoon got it about right, when it depicted the serpent (the devil) offering Eve a condom in the Garden (of Eden). Check out the history of the development of "birth control," and that's about how it came about.

Mating is about tranferring the human seed, so that human life may spread. No wonder they call contraceptive sex, "fake sex" over at the Philippines pro-life forum. It's trying to simulate something, while supposedly removing the consequences of that action, but all the related social problems (abortion, divorce, promotion of selfish thinking, etc.), shows that we haven't removed the consequences so well, either. Why would you "plant the seed" and then hope it doesn't grow? Is that really so rational? In fact, it occurs to me, that without the prospect of pregnancy, and without the biological and moral need to pass on human life, exchanging bodily fluids probably isn't so sanitary anyway, so why not we just become a bunch of prudes, and do away with sex and the "orgasm," as depicted in the dystopian movie "1984," where they wanted to eliminate the "orgasm" as a needless distraction from serving the State?

 

[deleted15807]

You think I am just "making it up?" That my pro-life, pro-population view is "peculiar?" Most all religions promote large families. Even some atheists claim that human population growth helps promote "progress" for the human race. Let's look at the Noah's Ark account, now that you mention it. 2 of each kind of animal. 2 dogs, 2 cats. But how many people? Just 2? No, there were 8 people on the Ark. Noah and his wife, Noah's 3 sons, and their 3 wives. And presumably, everybody who would have heeded Noah's warnings of God's impending judgement upon the world, would have been admitted, before that God had shut the door, and the rains descended. Why the bias towards humans? For one, it was a human that built the Ark. But I think it could imply much more, that human populations would ultimately naturally swell so large, as to finally start displacing some of the animals, even upon a huge vast planet.

Why do we need another planet? I read somewhere that only 7% of the world population, lives in countries where the population is not growing. Most of the world's people, live in countries where human populations are growing, and growing denser, all at the same time. It's largely driving technologies, that do so much, to make big city life, a lot more comfortable and livable, than it would have been in the past. What real choice do we have, but to go forward? World population is already growing far faster, than current technology could possibly relocate people to more worlds. What's even easier than packing people into spaceships and shuttling them off to find less hospitable worlds? How about "camping in your own backyard." Build the population arcologies, spaceships, supercities, or whatever, where the populous masses live already, then we don't need to "transport" them far. Where can we put the additional billions to come? The answer is right under our noses. Where we have always put them. In between all the people already living. By letting the people naturally populate denser and denser, so many more people can fit, well into the forseeable future. They say that about by the year 2008, half the world now lives in cities. If our future be more urban, then so be it. That's how it is then. So big cities must also be a suitable place for people to raise their "traditionally very large" families.

I read somewhere, the contraceptive pusher claim, that contraceptive usage must be expanded, just to keep up with population growth. Ha! But even that perpetuates the growth, allowing the numbers of fertile vaginas pushing out babies, to go on rising. As the numbers of people contracepting rises, so too, does population-proportionally, the numbers not using any "birth control" at all. And obviously, many people aren't even going to use any nasty contraceptives, until they have already had all, or more children, than they supposedly want. I think that many large families weren't originally planned that way, what happens, is that they just had their 4th child, and hardly even realize that their family is starting to get a bit "large," and they never seem to get around to selecting a "satisfactory" means of "birth control." Does half the world really use contraception, when they don't when "trying to conceive," and most people still have children? There seems to be quite many possibly bogus claims floating around, not being properly challenged. I advocate reducing contraceptive usage, as the numbers of women of childbearing age go right on rising naturally, and relax and let the human race ENLARGE its already "huge" numbers more naturally, and welcome and celebrate each and every precious and sacred human life. Let the world's baby booms persist and spread and grow into the predicted "Baby Blast" that supposedly will come, if contraceptive usage can't be duped into increasing from half to 75%.

Noah had no reason to kick out the animals out of the Ark, that God I think led to come by themselves, onto the Ark. At least the movie "Evan Almighty" got that part right. Evan must have known he wasn't "off his rocker," even if everybody else thought so, when supposedly wild animals started flocking to him, like he was their Savior or something. Because man had dominion already, and would easily win any future habitat challenge over the other animals. Besides, many animals are useful as food to feed humans. Some Creationalists think that the animals on the Ark were babies, and not full-size, that way they would fit eaiser, eat less, and there would be all the less manure to daily shovel outside to drop into the flood waters outside.

The real "experiment" would be what frightening unnatural force, could possibly challenge the natural "force of nature" that human reproduction is or is possibly becoming. Consider that the world now has around 3.5 billion human penises on it. A human penis, for every 10 acres of land on the planet. Surely that has got to have an effect on the biosphere, but apparently not one that nature objects, but seems in many respects, to actually welcome. Letting the human race expand naturally, is really the safest and most beautiful, and perhaps the easiest sale, option possibly available to humans. Humans are accused of adapting "too well" to our environment, making us something like the ultimate or most invasive and hardy "weed" in a sense. Well what if that is really our strength, and not so much a population-phobic perceived weakness?

Have you actually been to any of these countries with high birth rates? Do you see lots of happy faces? Or do you see children begging for food and sustinance? I've been all over the world and I've seen hunger and desparation in children. Children. But you could careless about their suffering. Your perscription is MORE children. Damn the hunger. Damn the suffering. More children.

You sir are the worst kind of religious zealot, completely oblivious to the suffering of your doctrine. The only thing that matters is the fulfilment of the doctrine. The commandment must be fulfiled for eternity. Pass the Kool Aid please.

 

[pronatalist]

People letting their families grow possibly large, leads to more people having large families.​

So if your theory of: The more birthcontrol that is used the more other families to expand to make up for it. Good, you can have my 14 other children.

What's the obsession that liberals have with Zero-Sum arguments. Why do they insist upon making people suffer?

I don't want people to have smaller families, so that I may have a larger family. Many of the reasons I list for large families, are far more "universal" than that. If they lead me to have more children, they also lead other people to have more children.

If I have my 14 children, or my 5 children or whatever God sees fit to "issue" to me, how exactly do you expect me to have your 14 other children? Do you really think I am so smart and wealthy, as to be able to raise 28 children, when 14 or 15 of my own children, might be enough of a "full house" already/ Don't forget, I love children, and so then I might have 100 grandchildren, although most people don't end up having that many. So I would be having grandchildren over, perhaps even before I get all the children moved out of the house? I can't have your 14 children, for it wouldn't be the same children. They would look more like me, and not like you. Or are you offering to let me adopt your children? That often doesn't work either, because parents often bond with their children, and decide to keep them after all. Not all adoptions follow through as planned. To be fair, I welcome everybody to have their 14 children, all at the same time, although author Mary Pride claims that 5 or 6 children per family, is typical or average in countries where "birth control" still isn't generally used.

Baby booms naturally tend to be "contagious." If people see that I have a wonderful 14-child family, they tend to let their families grow naturally larger, as well. In order to welcome all the future people who may rather like coming alive, I can't have so many children, so it invites everybody to enjoy having "all the children that God gives." To encourage the populous masses to shun "birth control" as their numbers go on rising naturally.

 

[HellsKitchenmanNYC]

I've been w/4 Indian men. None of them were small tho one was average at @ 5". One guy was really big and it took about 10 mins. to get it all the way in me. I can state that Indian men are NOT all small.

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

Your right! Its not your job to raise my 14 children....nor is it my job to raise all the other poor children on welfare because their parents couldnt afford to have them or could care less about supporting them.

 

[faceking]

You think I am just "making it up?" That my pro-life, pro-population view is "peculiar?" Most all religions promote large families. Even some atheists claim that human population growth helps promote "progress" for the human race. Let's look at the Noah's Ark account, now that you mention it. 2 of each kind of animal. 2 dogs, 2 cats. But how many people? Just 2? No, there were 8 people on the Ark. Noah and his wife, Noah's 3 sons, and their 3 wives. And presumably, everybody who would have heeded Noah's warnings of God's impending judgement upon the world, would have been admitted, before that God had shut the door, and the rains descended. Why the bias towards humans? For one, it was a human that built the Ark. But I think it could imply much more, that human populations would ultimately naturally swell so large, as to finally start displacing some of the animals, even upon a huge vast planet.

Why do we need another planet? I read somewhere that only 7% of the world population, lives in countries where the population is not growing. Most of the world's people, live in countries where human populations are growing, and growing denser, all at the same time. It's largely driving technologies, that do so much, to make big city life, a lot more comfortable and livable, than it would have been in the past. What real choice do we have, but to go forward? World population is already growing far faster, than current technology could possibly relocate people to more worlds. What's even easier than packing people into spaceships and shuttling them off to find less hospitable worlds? How about "camping in your own backyard." Build the population arcologies, spaceships, supercities, or whatever, where the populous masses live already, then we don't need to "transport" them far. Where can we put the additional billions to come? The answer is right under our noses. Where we have always put them. In between all the people already living. By letting the people naturally populate denser and denser, so many more people can fit, well into the forseeable future. They say that about by the year 2008, half the world now lives in cities. If our future be more urban, then so be it. That's how it is then. So big cities must also be a suitable place for people to raise their "traditionally very large" families.

I read somewhere, the contraceptive pusher claim, that contraceptive usage must be expanded, just to keep up with population growth. Ha! But even that perpetuates the growth, allowing the numbers of fertile vaginas pushing out babies, to go on rising. As the numbers of people contracepting rises, so too, does population-proportionally, the numbers not using any "birth control" at all. And obviously, many people aren't even going to use any nasty contraceptives, until they have already had all, or more children, than they supposedly want. I think that many large families weren't originally planned that way, what happens, is that they just had their 4th child, and hardly even realize that their family is starting to get a bit "large," and they never seem to get around to selecting a "satisfactory" means of "birth control." Does half the world really use contraception, when they don't when "trying to conceive," and most people still have children? There seems to be quite many possibly bogus claims floating around, not being properly challenged. I advocate reducing contraceptive usage, as the numbers of women of childbearing age go right on rising naturally, and relax and let the human race ENLARGE its already "huge" numbers more naturally, and welcome and celebrate each and every precious and sacred human life. Let the world's baby booms persist and spread and grow into the predicted "Baby Blast" that supposedly will come, if contraceptive usage can't be duped into increasing from half to 75%.

Noah had no reason to kick out the animals out of the Ark, that God I think led to come by themselves, onto the Ark. At least the movie "Evan Almighty" got that part right. Evan must have known he wasn't "off his rocker," even if everybody else thought so, when supposedly wild animals started flocking to him, like he was their Savior or something. Because man had dominion already, and would easily win any future habitat challenge over the other animals. Besides, many animals are useful as food to feed humans. Some Creationalists think that the animals on the Ark were babies, and not full-size, that way they would fit eaiser, eat less, and there would be all the less manure to daily shovel outside to drop into the flood waters outside.

The real "experiment" would be what frightening unnatural force, could possibly challenge the natural "force of nature" that human reproduction is or is possibly becoming. Consider that the world now has around 3.5 billion human penises on it. A human penis, for every 10 acres of land on the planet. Surely that has got to have an effect on the biosphere, but apparently not one that nature objects, but seems in many respects, to actually welcome. Letting the human race expand naturally, is really the safest and most beautiful, and perhaps the easiest sale, option possibly available to humans. Humans are accused of adapting "too well" to our environment, making us something like the ultimate or most invasive and hardy "weed" in a sense. Well what if that is really our strength, and not so much a population-phobic perceived weakness?

This post just made me LAUGH MY ASS OFF....

and to be honest... I skimmed about 3 sentences....

I laughed, ... because of one or more of the following:

• it's within some race card post
• it's within some penis vs race post
• it has gone WAY off topic
• it's epic in it's length
• it's not cut and pasted, so it's pure thoughts that will be buried soon
• i see alot of Star Wars stuff with force and nature and so on... but didn't see Yoda mentioned, so not sure
• dives off the cliff into some creationalism, which I don't want to even see the perspective thereof
• and the final skim point was penis:acreage ratios.

Perhaps it's sacrilige to skim over this, and it's Buckley-like quality in rhetoric... but what is funny fodder for me (and others) to use against egotistical Indians friends... as a joke, because we all get it and are above it somehow .... ah nevermind.

Carry on... let me know when a banning happens because of this (actually don't.. I don't care), but when Tom Cruise and debunking of Scientology somehow digresses (or support thereof) comes in... I'll dive back in.

 

[fiascosauce]

pronatalist, you are a ridiculous person. even your name is ridiculous. it is because of people like you that i am sometimes ashamed to tell people internationally that i am from the US.

that's very interesting to me, because there aren't many like you on this website. how does your family of children "issued to you" by god, excuse me - God, feel about you spending so much time on a website about large penises?

you have no fucking right to talk about india, or any other place in this world that you have no knowledge of. let me tell you; overpopulation is not something you take so lightly as to turn it into a religious/political issue. it has very little to do with either. it is a DIRE set of circumstances that leads to infants being murdered and buried in china, leads to a completely out of control male:female ratio in india, poverty and malnutrition and starvation and hunger and thirst, distended bellies, and agony all over the world.

there was no fuckin "ark" dude. noah did not exist. who are you to tell a hindu or a muslim or a confucianist or a daoist or an agnostic or an atheist like me what happened in the early stages of the earth? nobody.

keep your shit to yourself and nobody will bother you. once you start trying to affect OTHER PEOPLES' lives because of your backwards stance on history and myth, it's time for you to keep your opinions to yourself.

 

[pronatalist]

you , sir, are a true and substantial idiot.

Women are enslaved by natural biology... an argument against birth control is an argument For female disenfranchisement.

All the stats prove you wrong.

As birth rates fall, standards of living rise... Families with fewer children report far greater satisfaction with life.

Fewer children means that families can invest more in each child in the form of education and resources... which gives each child a richer, more impactful life.


Women having control over their reproductive biology is the single most important change in human society in 6 thousand years.
It enables women to have better, happier, and more productive lives.

Famine and pestilence and war are functions of resources inadequate to meet the needs of a population.

Limiting population eliminates a lot of suffering.



IF you are so in favor of "natural" living... then you should be aware that natural farming, and natural living can only support about HALF the current world population.

Ergo, your thesis, that more people is better, is simply drivel.

And people like to pretend these days, that they are "educated?" Ha!

Do you really think I haven't thought through some of the ramifications?

Is farming "natural?" Many would say that hunting and gathering is more natural than agriculture. I would say that agriculture is becoming rather quaint and out-dated. In comparison, microwave ovens seem to cook "by magic," like something out the future, while planting seeds, and waiting and waiting for them to grow crops, if the weather is just right, if we have applied enough irrigation and fertilizer, is so passé. Little different than how they did it 1000s of years ago. We just use better seed, machines, and better distribution of fertilizer and water. And chemical pesticides and herbicides.

Where did I once say I was for more "natural" farming, or "organic" farming, or whatever they call it, at jacked-up prices, but of course? I want for more things to be more relaxed and more natural, but there's already far too many people in the world, for everybody to live "primitive" lives like the Amish. So I call for development, economic reform, cheap and abundant energy to power growing cities, and electricity and gas to eliminate millions of smoky cooking fires from growing cities. If there must be more "artificial" stuff in our lives, to ACCOMODATE better our growing numbers, let it be more external, and not be of contraception potions and poisons deliberately inserted into our bodies to sabotage our natural reproductive systems and conspire to delude and rob us out of our precious darling babies.

Here's a few examples of where I stand on "natural" versus "artificial." I don't have any ugly tattoos, I don't smoke, I don't drink alcohol, I don't have bizarre body piercings, my hair color is natural. I never had a natural birthmark removed. I wear "corrective lenses" rather than risk lasick laser surgery. Glasses are more natural, and cheaper, than surgery, and easily "reversable" in the event of problems. I can take my glasses off, or throw them away if they fail, and get new ones made. But I drive a car, I have many (most old and outdated) computers, I have a fancy graphing calculator, I have so many books. Are these natural things, or artificial? I go for the natural, where it benefits me, and I go for the artificial, where it benefits me. We can choose the best?

I actually do agree with the population phobics, on a few minor points, but not at all on their major focus. We can't keep adding more and more people to the planet, and keep doing things the same old ways. But what if we were to find better ways to do things? Better ways that people would want anyway? Wouldn't that then, help to serve the primal need to further enlarge our numbers? So better performing flush toilets replaced the old smelly outhouses, as cities filled and densified with people. Vaccines and better public sanitation serve to keep disease in check, as populations continue to naturally swell. I am open to some reasonable level of GMOs, to help feed a supposedly unbridled expansion of the numbers of human mouths to feed. Rather than dumping food into the oceans to prop up farmer crop prices, wouldn't it be far more moral, to allow the numbers of human mouths to feed to rise naturally instead, so that people can enjoy having their precious darling babies without having to rig markets against the interests of the working poor? I favor using the "artificial" to support the "natural" increase. Seems the ideal combination or human-friendly "compromise."

I also take issue with your claim that falling birthrates cause a higher standard of living. That correlation isn't so clear. I have heard the claim even, that living standards haven't increased since the 1980s. Sure, we have stupid electronic buzz always in our ears, iPods, but not affordable gasoline. A lot of social trends took a turn for the worse, right about 1962 or so, when a Supreme Court decision largely unchallenged, removed prayer from the government school monopoly classroom. Divorce rates, pregnancies outside of wedlock, later abortion rates, all soared. STDs spread, AIDS came and became a worldwide epidemic, so many people seem to be losing their faith, and don't know much what they believe in anymore. People claim to be "educated" and yet haven't read "the book of books," the Bible. That's almost like being culturally "illiterate" or something. Whether one believes the Bible or not, they still need to read it, just to understand history and the basis of morals. Maybe that was the idea in making the old movie of "The Ten Commandments," that often airs around Easter time. Some people are doing better financially, but they have less free time, spend less time with their families, and feel less secure. And even if living standards have improved, maybe it's in spite of sagging birthrates, not at all because of. Or maybe it's an illusion. Or maybe increasing excessive consumption and materialism is replacing spirituality, so we really are becoming spiritually bankrupt, and don't even see clearly enough to realize what's going on?

And limiting population growth is retarding needed reforms, that I think may actually come faster and more readily, in an educated, modern, but more pronatalist society. Many countries are already reaching the "tipping point" of flipping from having multiple acres of land per person, to multiple people per acre. I am concerned that they make the proper natural transition towards a world better designed to be heavily populated by people.

"It is high time to accept as forever gone, the sparsely populated world of the past, and to move on in an orderly transition to the populous world of the future." Pronatalist

So many breeders look all around, and say there's all sorts of places that we can put more people. I agree. There's nothing really in nature that necessarily prevents people from enjoying having babies just as fast as their bodies want to make more, even as they populate more densely together. Most anything that could seem to keep our numbers "in check" seems to be fast fading away. Other than the natural limits of already occupied wombs and additional people still too young to reproduce, which set a natural limit on how fast human populations can expand, allowing ample time to adapt and prepare for our natural increase and to welcome our progeny.

 

[marleyisalegend]

the best theory i can come up with to explain this is that pronatalist is just an anti-abortionist. there's a mountain of things i could say about how essential women being able to control their "reproductive process" is. i'm sure that is overpopulation were the key to unlocking the hidden potential of mankind, we wouldn't spend so much money on producing contraceptives. pronatalist, you can live in your fantasy world, i'll be over here in reality where babies are left in dumpsters, abused, neglected and generally just suffer because having the ability to make a child and knowing how to raise one are two completely different worlds. 100% of the population can make one, it's debatable how many know how to raise productive children who don't just cost us all more by cycling through the justice system, committing murders, rapes, and other crimes simply because they weren't raised correctly

 

[pronatalist]

Does it take a "ridiculous" person to recognize a "ridiculous" person?​

pronatalist, you are a ridiculous person. even your name is ridiculous. it is because of people like you that i am sometimes ashamed to tell people internationally that i am from the US.

So my screen name is ridiculous? Oh really? No respect even for my name? I haven't even bothered to try to analyze what all these people's screen names might possibly mean. Do you really want to get me started on that?

And you think I am the only "ridiculous" person in the U.S.? We are the 3rd most populous nation in the world, so that could be a small part of that. But anyway, we have far too many "ridiculous" people. Shall we name some names? Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Sharpton, Ralph Nader, Al Gore. Some of these people, have such big mouths, say like Gore or Hillary, that cover their ears so that they rarely learn anything true.

that's very interesting to me, because there aren't many like you on this website. how does your family of children "issued to you" by god, excuse me - God, feel about you spending so much time on a website about large penises?

Isn't it amazing the things you can find, googling? Or do you think that all we pronatalists, have lots of time to do almost nothing to change the world, by "preaching to the choir" over at some large family forum? Oh, they are there. There's even forums for Catholics with their Catholic-tolerated "natural family planning" or rhythm method. Of course I think many of them have large families already. Like a lot of the world, I suspect that people who use rhythm, don't really use it so much. People who habitually enjoy sex with their mate, many are going to enjoy it too, during the most fertile time of the month, especially when "trying to conceive" or when their family might not necessarily be quite "large enough" yet.

And you can take it as a compliment, that LPSG actually talks about a lot more, than the supposed "enormity" of their penises. It serves apparently, as a starting point for a lot of "sexually-related" topics. And I have yet, to ever start a new thread on this website, which I do sometimes on other forums, and especially on the forums that I host.

you have no fucking right to talk about india, or any other place in this world that you have no knowledge of. let me tell you; overpopulation is not something you take so lightly as to turn it into a religious/political issue. it has very little to do with either. it is a DIRE set of circumstances that leads to infants being murdered and buried in china, leads to a completely out of control male:female ratio in india, poverty and malnutrition and starvation and hunger and thirst, distended bellies, and agony all over the world.

I can't talk of India, which I don't know about? Really? I have internet, just like you, so I do know of India. I read articles. I have debated with some guy who claimed to be from China, who complained of too much "competition" from other Chinese students, presumably because their population has grown so huge. Wouldn't it be nice if the U.S. had that problem, in one aspect at least? We have such sorry, liberal-dominated failing schools. We are trailing behind other developed countries in math and science, and also in our "health-care" system. It sounds like the U.S. probably leads the world, as being one of the easiest countries for people to go bankrupt with medical bills, and we don't even get the best medical care, and pay the most for it. I would cite a major reason that we have so many obese children in the U.S. the government-mandated, time-wasting, racial-quota busing, that replaced children walking to neighborhood schools. As usual, it isn't the video games, nor the sodas, but the government causing so many problems. While our computer programming and telephone center call center jobs, are moving to India. So how long until India is a "developed" country and the U.S. is a "third world" country?

These bad things that are happening to poor people, are the result of sin and corporate exploitation, and unfair economies and corrupt governments, not of sheer numbers of people, and I will not accept the "passing of the buck" in opining "We can't do anything, for we have 'too many' people." Nonsense. You had better do something, if you want for stable government and to stay in power.

there was no fuckin "ark" dude. noah did not exist. who are you to tell a hindu or a muslim or a confucianist or a daoist or an agnostic or an atheist like me what happened in the early stages of the earth? nobody.

Were you there, to prove it any different? Then let me have my faith. We can debate until the sky falls, whether somebody really found remnants of the Ark, or where the legends of 8 survivors of a great flood come from, from all over the world, and so on.

keep your shit to yourself and nobody will bother you. once you start trying to affect OTHER PEOPLES' lives because of your backwards stance on history and myth, it's time for you to keep your opinions to yourself.

Well let's just shut down every forum in the world, and just mind our own business? Ha! I didn't think so. As long as people have opinions, and like to talk, there shall be forums, and some curious smattering of "ridiculous" people making amazing claims, well unless Big Brother Anti-Christ government, just takes over the whole world, and people are scared-to-death, to say anything at all? Care to take a guess how many blogs there are out there in cyberspace, of "ridiculous" people, airing their questionable or conspiracy theory views? Isn't it great? I have heard that the internet is one of the most "democratic" places on the internet, for governments can't seem to quite figure out, how to control it. But I see the dialog on the internet, as a curious convergence of sometimes brilliant minds, helping to all the more accelerate the rate at which the world can figure out how to solve problems, yet another "benefit" of "uncontrolled" worldwide population growth, the population-driven technologies and fiber optics and incredibly miniturized transistors that made the internet finally possible, and then spread it onto iPod touchs and PDAs and cellphones.

Ever hear of quiverfull.org ?

They seem to have pretty good reasons to believe in having babies, just as fast as their bodies want to make them, probably the more the better.

Gasp! It's an American website!

Apparently, I am not at all "alone" in what I believe about the encouragement of still having traditionally large families, even in a "modern" and increasingly populous world.

And some believers tend to get "on fire" enough for God, as to be willing to be "a fool for God." I've preached to proaborts at an abortion clinic before. Yeah, they mocked me, but I felt there was maybe one of them there, who needed to hear what I had to say. I don't know which one, but maybe I will see him in heaven, as a result of what people like me have done. He's not going to let on, while around his "friends" but questions can be raised, that a person may seek out later. I mean to be "a fool for God," in a positive sense, that they aren't going to be distracted overly by what a foolish world thinks of them. I am not here to "correct" everything I disagree with on LPSG, but to express a view too much underrepresented, where I see opportunity to do so. But so far I haven't started any threads here, as I have my own forums I host, to take a different focus for the overall forum.

Where I came in, in this thread, I recall something about Indian people not being so "small" after all, as apparently they are using it where it counts, as there's over a billion of them now. Which I agreed with as counting more, than penis size. But being pro-population that India should continue to naturally swell with people, raising some interesting replies from people.

 

[pronatalist]

Not all pro-lifers are vocally pro-population, although it's more consistant to be both.​

the best theory i can come up with to explain this is that pronatalist is just an anti-abortionist. there's a mountain of things i could say about how essential women being able to control their "reproductive process" is. i'm sure that is overpopulation were the key to unlocking the hidden potential of mankind, we wouldn't spend so much money on producing contraceptives. pronatalist, you can live in your fantasy world, i'll be over here in reality where babies are left in dumpsters, abused, neglected and generally just suffer because having the ability to make a child and knowing how to raise one are two completely different worlds. 100% of the population can make one, it's debatable how many know how to raise productive children who don't just cost us all more by cycling through the justice system, committing murders, rapes, and other crimes simply because they weren't raised correctly

Not the "I had a bad childhood" cop-out. You don't really think I will buy that, do you? There's lots of people who had rough childhoods, who develop sympathy and compassion for suffering people of the world, and do so much to help out. Not all people "not raised right" turn out as rotten people messing up the world.

I heard somewhere that even Thomas Malthus, the apparent father of so much of the unproven "overpopulation" gloom-and-doom poverty "environmental" religion, supposedly said that overpopulation was necessary, to prevent laziness. And even the Club of Rome has had to backtrack on their "end of the world" scare tactic claims. Resources actually haven't declined as predicted. Check out "A Bet on Planet Earth," an article I saw in Reader's Digest, about how population pessimist lost a bet with population optimist Julian Simon. All 5 metals became less expensive, over the time span of their bet, a measure that they were becoming more abundant, not more scarce.

 

[pronatalist]

I've been w/4 Indian men. None of them were small tho one was average at @ 5". One guy was really big and it took about 10 mins. to get it all the way in me. I can state that Indian men are NOT all small.

Human bodies are getting bigger, probably both height and width, due to better nutrition. They had to widen the grand stairs, on the newest movie "Titanic," just to fit today's actors on them, as people used to be smaller.

Could a similar process be at work in India, that as more children grow up with better nutrition, their penis sizes are getting boosted a bit as well? That puberty "growth spurt" might be a bit bigger, with better nutrition during that time?

 

[deleted15807]

I heard somewhere that even Thomas Malthus, the apparent father of so much of the unproven "overpopulation" gloom-and-doom poverty "environmental" religion, supposedly said that overpopulation was necessary, to prevent laziness. And even the Club of Rome has had to backtrack on their "end of the world" scare tactic claims. Resources actually haven't declined as predicted. Check out "A Bet on Planet Earth," an article I saw in Reader's Digest, about how population pessimist lost a bet with population optimist Julian Simon. All 5 metals became less expensive, over the time span of their bet, a measure that they were becoming more abundant, not more scarce.

For your next insufferable essay why don't you convince us that 2+2=5? Your 'logic' is so deeply flawed it's simply breathtaking in it's audacity.

You belong on CBN.com - The Christian Broadcasting Network - The 700 Club with Pat Robertson or Mormon.org. You will find a much more receptive audience there.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

Well thankfully you've come forward to set the record straight.....nine years later.

wtf

 

[pearl kd]

No not all indians are small
I got 6+ long and 5+ thick dick
You can check my pictures

 

[5inchAussie]