Has Political Correctness Gone too Far?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And cultural and social standards change over the course of time, and while gay couples cannot reproduce, they can help to ensure a future generation, whether through adoption or through artificial insemination.

I think artificial insemination is very dangerous, it's the beginning of designer babies.

You do realize that the practice has been going on for centuries through various methods, right?

[Morr]

I think artificial insemination is very dangerous, it's the beginning of designer babies.

You do realize that the practice has been going on for centuries through various methods, right?

Not a modern trend toward divorcing sex and procreation, no. The function today is very different.

[Dakini]

You do realize that the practice has been going on for centuries through various methods, right?

Not a modern trend toward divorcing sex and procreation, no. The function today is very different.

Sex with goals other than procreation has also been going on for millennia.

[Quokkastan]

You do realize that the practice has been going on for centuries through various methods, right?

Not a modern trend toward divorcing sex and procreation, no. The function today is very different.

Human biology itself disagrees.

[Morr]

Not a modern trend toward divorcing sex and procreation, no. The function today is very different.

Sex with goals other than procreation has also been going on for millennia.

There's a pretty big difference between that, and a total divorce between the two in public consciousness.

[Morr]

Not a modern trend toward divorcing sex and procreation, no. The function today is very different.

Human biology itself disagrees.

Human biology doesn't have an ideology.

[Dakini]

Sex with goals other than procreation has also been going on for millennia.

There's a pretty big difference between that, and a total divorce between the two in public consciousness.

Dude, most sex is not for procreation. It never has been. I'm not sure what you think the difference is between whatever time you consider the glorious past and now, but the only real difference is that we have better methods to avoid accidental pregnancies now.

[Morr]

There's a pretty big difference between that, and a total divorce between the two in public consciousness.

Dude, most sex is not for procreation. It never has been. I'm not sure what you think the difference is between whatever time you consider the glorious past and now, but the only real difference is that we have better methods to avoid accidental pregnancies now.

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying here. Most sex is not, and may never have been mostly about procreation, but it has always been associated with it as a signifier, and procreation has almost invariably been a product of sex, and invariably been a product of pregnancy. These last three are what I'm addressing.

As an aside, the idea that sex has to be "for" or "against" procreation, as opposed to just open to procreation, is pretty new.

[Dakini]

Dude, most sex is not for procreation. It never has been. I'm not sure what you think the difference is between whatever time you consider the glorious past and now, but the only real difference is that we have better methods to avoid accidental pregnancies now.

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying here. Most sex is not, and may never have been mostly about procreation, but it has always been associated with it as a signifier, and procreation has almost invariably been a product of sex, and invariably been a product of pregnancy. These last three are what I'm addressing.

Except that none of what you just said is true.

Aside from the bit where not all forms of sex even possibly result in procreation (mutual masturbation, oral sex, homosexual sex...), people have worked on contraceptives or other ways to have their sexy times without the babies (e.g. withdrawal, rhythm method... neither of which are recommended, but they're sometimes better than nothing) since people realized that sexy times sometimes resulted in unwanted babies. The Romans used a plant until it was extinct because it meant they could have sex without having to deal with babies.

The thing is, most adults like having sex way more than they like having babies so people have always sought ways to have sex without dealing with all of that baby bullshit.

You really need to stop pretending that anything else is the case.

As an aside, the idea that sex has to be "for" or "against" procreation, as opposed to just open to procreation, is pretty new.

Not really. While pregnancy is typically a risk of penis in vagina sex involving a person with ovaries and a uterus who has menses, most of human history has involved attempts to avoid that part.

I mean, seriously, if I have sex three times a week, I don't want 150 babies in a year (if that were even possible). Nobody does.

[Morr]

Except that none of what you just said is true.

What. Did you even read what I said? I suggest you do so again very slowly, very carefully.

Not really. While pregnancy is typically a risk of penis in vagina sex involving a person with ovaries and a uterus who has menses, most of human history has involved attempts to avoid that part.

For most of human history, most people have depended on having a lot of children to help them in their line of work and support them in old age. Birth control was mainly used by people who didn't need that. If the working class offed their kids, it was mostly the female ones; male children who weren't deformed would be an investment, if anything. Urbanization is what started making large families economically untenable instead of desirable.

[Dakini]

It's also ludicrous to think that couples have only ever had enough sex to have children. My great grandmother was the eldest of 14 children. Her parents definitely had sex way more than 14 times and it would be surprising to me if at least a few of those 14 children were not intentional.

[Dakini]

Except that none of what you just said is true.

What. Did you even read what I said? I suggest you do so again very slowly, very carefully.

Yes, I did read what you said. It was wrong. Moving on.

Not really. While pregnancy is typically a risk of penis in vagina sex involving a person with ovaries and a uterus who has menses, most of human history has involved attempts to avoid that part.

For most of human history, most people have depended on having a lot of children to help them in their line of work and support them in old age. Birth control was mainly used by people who didn't need that. If the working class offed their kids, it was mostly the female ones; male children who weren't deformed would be an investment, if anything. Urbanization is what started making large families economically untenable instead of desirable.

Ugh, not really. If anything, people had more children because infant mortality rates were high, contraception was unreliable and people didn't all know what they were doing. Nobody really wants that many children because you have to feed all of those children. If you have 10 kids and 2 make it to adulthood, that's more than enough to support you in your old age.

Also, it's cute that you think women and girls don't do anything in sustenance farming (which is what most people did throughout human history). The idea that women should sit at home and do nothing but bear children is thoroughly modern as well as being thoroughly middle/upper class.

[Morr]

It's also ludicrous to think that couples have only ever had enough sex to have children. My great grandmother was the eldest of 14 children. Her parents definitely had sex way more than 14 times and it would be surprising to me if at least a few of those 14 children were not intentional.

Whom are you arguing with, exactly?

[Dakini]

It's also ludicrous to think that couples have only ever had enough sex to have children. My great grandmother was the eldest of 14 children. Her parents definitely had sex way more than 14 times and it would be surprising to me if at least a few of those 14 children were not intentional.

Whom are you arguing with, exactly?

You, who insists that people apparently always wanted infinite children.

Except the girls, who you claim are useless.

[Morr]

Yes, I did read what you said. It was wrong. Moving on.

So you don't think most procreation came about from pregnancy?

Ugh, not really. If anything, people had more children because infant mortality rates were high, contraception was unreliable and people didn't all know what they were doing. Nobody really wants that many children because you have to feed all of those children. If you have 10 kids and 2 make it to adulthood, that's more than enough to support you in your old age.

You have to feed all those children, but in an agrarian economy, those children are all going to be producing a lot more food than they consume before they even reach adolescence.

Also, it's cute that you think women and girls don't do anything in sustenance farming (which is what most people did throughout human history). The idea that women should sit at home and do nothing but bear children is thoroughly modern.

This is all dependent on class. If you were a landowner, your daughters and wife probably wouldn't be working the land, because that was a sign of poverty. If you were a serf or a tenant, then they probably would.

[Morr]

Whom are you arguing with, exactly?

You, who insists that people apparently always wanted infinite children.

Except the girls, who you claim are useless.

Girls weren't a problem because they couldn't work, they were a problem because of dowries.

[Dakini]

Yes, I did read what you said. It was wrong. Moving on.

So you don't think most procreation came about from pregnancy?

That part I admit I glossed over.

Granted, that's no reason to suggest that there's anything at all wrong with IVF.

Ugh, not really. If anything, people had more children because infant mortality rates were high, contraception was unreliable and people didn't all know what they were doing. Nobody really wants that many children because you have to feed all of those children. If you have 10 kids and 2 make it to adulthood, that's more than enough to support you in your old age.

You have to feed all those children, but in an agrarian economy, those children are all going to be producing a lot more food than they consume before they even reach adolescence.

Not necessarily. For starters, most people didn't have access to enough land... which is sort of a problem if you want to increase production of food.

Also, it's cute that you think women and girls don't do anything in sustenance farming (which is what most people did throughout human history). The idea that women should sit at home and do nothing but bear children is thoroughly modern.

This is all dependent on class. If you were a landowner, your daughters and wife probably wouldn't be working the land, because that was a sign of poverty. If you were a serf or a tenant, then they probably would.

You're aware that human beings spent way longer with most people being serfs or tenants doing sustenance farming than they did where the people who owned the land actually had their families working on it, right?

[Dakini]

You, who insists that people apparently always wanted infinite children.

Except the girls, who you claim are useless.

Girls weren't a problem because they couldn't work, they were a problem because of dowries.

Dowries weren't a thing everywhere (and some places had a bride price, wherein a husband's family would pay his wife's family to compensate for the loss of her labour). Never mind that in many societies which had dowries, the gift wasn't always to the husband or his family, but to the bride for her new life and was sort of a way of letting more than one child inherit whatever family wealth had been accruing.

Also, when your initial argument is about poor people (e.g. the people who would consider offing their children in order to eat), I don't think that you really get to start in about how dowries were the problem.

[Morr]

Granted, that's no reason to suggest that there's anything at all wrong with IVF.

My major concern is this: that it is the stepping stone to not just a divorce of sex and reproduction public consciousness, but in practical terms, à la The Dialectic of Sex.

Not necessarily. For starters, most people didn't have access to enough land... which is sort of a problem if you want to increase production of food.

Maybe in urbanization. But in agrarian societies, it wasn't a bunch of people owning little parcels of land, it was a few people owning all the land and the rest working it. A family worked a fairly large portion, and they paid rent on it. If your harvest was too small, that rent could be crippling.

You're aware that human beings spent way longer with most people being serfs or tenants doing sustenance farming than they did where the people who owned the land actually had their families working on it, right?

Erm, judging by Hesiod, even modest landowners with slaves often worked their own land. Peasants (as distinct from serfs) in the Middle Ages did as well. There were massive landowners, and there were modest (not by today's standards) landowners. Together they made up a relatively small portion of the population yet owned all the land, but to say there was no overlap between worker and owner around the middle would be wrong.

[Morr]

Dowries weren't a thing everywhere (and some places had a bride price, wherein a husband's family would pay his wife's family to compensate for the loss of her labour).

And in these times and places, it is unlikely that many females were exposed by their parents, because as you've just illustrated, they were seen as an investment, not an economic drag.

Never mind that in many societies which had dowries, the gift wasn't always to the husband or his family, but to the bride for her new life and was sort of a way of letting more than one child inherit whatever family wealth had been accruing.

The dowry is to the wife by definition. In almost all societies, if the husband dies or whatever, she keeps it.

Also, when your initial argument is about poor people (e.g. the people who would consider offing their children in order to eat), I don't think that you really get to start in about how dowries were the problem.

Offing your kid wasn't seen as a big deal in ancient times, if it was right after birth, so long as it was done through exposure. It wasn't looked at as horrendous, and even the upper class practiced it sometimes when they had ugly babies.

Poor people still had property, like horses, plows, tools, and so on.

[Dakini]

Granted, that's no reason to suggest that there's anything at all wrong with IVF.

My major concern is this: that it is the stepping stone to not just a divorce of sex and reproduction public consciousness, but in practical terms, à la The Dialectic of Sex.

You're aware that IVF is not only super expensive, but also way more difficult than producing a child by fucking someone (at least for most people), right?

Not necessarily. For starters, most people didn't have access to enough land... which is sort of a problem if you want to increase production of food.

Maybe in urbanization. But in agrarian societies, it wasn't a bunch of people owning little parcels of land, it was a few people owning all the land and the rest working it. A family worked a fairly large portion, and they paid rent on it. If your harvest was too small, that rent could be crippling.

For starters, the amount of land farmers had access to definitely varied a lot and they didn't have to rent more than they could work. Additionally, the more land they had to use feeding themselves and their family, the less they have to grow crops for the landowner, so large families aren't especially advantageous beyond a certain point...

You're aware that human beings spent way longer with most people being serfs or tenants doing sustenance farming than they did where the people who owned the land actually had their families working on it, right?

Erm, judging by Hesiod, even modest landowners with slaves often worked their own land. Peasants (as distinct from serfs) in the Middle Ages did as well. There were massive landowners, and there were modest (not by today's standards) landowners. Together they made up a relatively small portion of the population yet owned all the land, but to say there was no overlap between worker and owner around the middle would be wrong.

Oh yes, let's use Hesiod as representative of how everything was everywhere.

[Dakini]

Dowries weren't a thing everywhere (and some places had a bride price, wherein a husband's family would pay his wife's family to compensate for the loss of her labour).

And in these times and places, it is unlikely that many females were exposed by their parents, because as you've just illustrated, they were seen as an investment, not an economic drag.

Using "females" to talk about women and girls is fucking creepy.

Never mind that in many societies which had dowries, the gift wasn't always to the husband or his family, but to the bride for her new life and was sort of a way of letting more than one child inherit whatever family wealth had been accruing.

The dowry is to the wife by definition. In almost all societies, if the husband dies or whatever, she keeps it.

Also, when your initial argument is about poor people (e.g. the people who would consider offing their children in order to eat), I don't think that you really get to start in about how dowries were the problem.

Offing your kid wasn't seen as a big deal in ancient times, if it was right after birth, so long as it was done through exposure. It wasn't looked at as horrendous, and even the upper class practiced it sometimes when they had ugly babies.

Depends on the society, though for the most part, people have committed infanticide throughout history because they had too many unwanted children that they couldn't feed.

So there goes your glorious past where sex and pregnancy are wonderfully linked and everything was sunshine and rainbows until these things "became decoupled".

Poor people still had property, like horses, plows, tools, and so on.

That actually also depends on the society.

[Morr]

[quote="Dakini";p="27126613"']You're aware that IVF is not only super expensive, but also way more difficult than producing a child by fucking someone (at least for most people), right? [/quote]

I don't think it will stay that way. Do you? It might even be covered by healthcare eventually.

Not necessarily. For starters, most people didn't have access to enough land... which is sort of a problem if you want to increase production of food.

For starters, the amount of land farmers had access to definitely varied a lot and they didn't have to rent more than they could work. Additionally, the more land they had to use feeding themselves and their family, the less they have to grow crops for the landowner, so large families aren't especially advantageous beyond a certain point...

That's all true, kids were always an investment that took a few years to bear fruit. By the time some were old enough to start working more than they consumed, it would make it more practical to have more, though. The more hands you have working, the more kids you could support. The major cap here was land limitations, which I really don't think were that common. Land was an abundant resource, provided it was irrigated, the question was of who had authority over it all, not how much there was to go around. In fact, famines really weren't devastating affairs until urbanization, when the population started outpacing the land needed to consistently support it.

Oh yes, let's use Hesiod as representative of how everything was everywhere.

We don't have to, but there were landowners of the modesty Hesiod addressed, pretty much everywhere.

[Dakini]

You're aware that IVF is not only super expensive, but also way more difficult than producing a child by fucking someone (at least for most people), right?

I don't think it will stay that way. Do you? It might even be covered by healthcare eventually.

It's never going to become easier for most people though. IVF is not some super easy procedure, you know. Even if it were free, it's not easy.

Not necessarily. For starters, most people didn't have access to enough land... which is sort of a problem if you want to increase production of food.

For starters, the amount of land farmers had access to definitely varied a lot and they didn't have to rent more than they could work. Additionally, the more land they had to use feeding themselves and their family, the less they have to grow crops for the landowner, so large families aren't especially advantageous beyond a certain point...

That's all true, kids were always an investment that took a few years to bear fruit. By the time some were old enough to start working more than they consumed, it would make it more practical to have more, though. The more hands you have working, the more kids you could support. The major cap here was land limitations, which I really don't think were that common. Land was an abundant resource, provided it was irrigated, the question was of who had authority over it all, not how much there was to go around. In fact, famines really weren't devastating affairs until urbanization, when the population started outpacing the land needed to consistently support it.

So... you're claiming that people would have a few kids, stop having sex for several years and then have a few more kids?

That's what you're claiming people regularly did in the history of humanity?

Oh yes, let's use Hesiod as representative of how everything was everywhere.

We don't have to, but there were landowners of the modesty Hesiod addressed, pretty much everywhere.

And I'm sure they all behaved in exactly the ways he described...

[Morr]

Depends on the society, though for the most part, people have committed infanticide throughout history because they had too many unwanted children that they couldn't feed.

In urbanized environments, yes. But most people didn't live in those, because urbanized environments needed most people to live in agrarian environments in order to support them, until farming technology progressed so far that you don't need at least 70% of the population devoted to it.

So there goes your glorious past where sex and pregnancy are wonderfully linked and everything was sunshine and rainbows until these things "became decoupled".

I wouldn't say sex and procreation are completely disassociated as *signifiers*, but I'd say they are moreso than they were before, and that this sundering is progressing.

That actually also depends on the society.

It's true across the board. If you didn't own anything in an agrarian environment, it was almost always because you were a either young man and a day laborer, or a slave, and I don't think slaves cared much about controlling birth, if they were even allowed to.