The Manhood Trap

[Toni]

And you're not interpreting it right. First is probably the winner, but scraping out semen reduces the handicap of not being first.

Ohmyfuckinggod: You seem to believe that women regularly line guys up and let them ejaculate, one after another.

Honestly, Loren. That’s just ignorant.

You aren't being willing to accept it because it goes against your ideas, you aren't addressing the reality.

That’s a mirror you’re looking into. Honestly, Loren, you are being willfully ignorant. US history is filled with the names of people who grew up in poverty and rose to great heights because of their intellectual talents and hard work. And we have an extremely prominent example of someone born into great wealth and privilege who is no one’s idea of an intelligent man sitting in the Oval Office right now—or golfing or on the toilet. Who knows.

 

[WAB]

Human penises ( and any other penis I am aware of) have no vacuum function to remove the sperm of other men/males.

Scraping, not suction. Look where the head joins the shaft--the forward facing side is a low angle, the rear-facing side is a very high angle. The low angle does not push as well as the high angle scrapes, the overall effect is any semen already present will tend to be pulled out.

This is the greatest argument for condoms I've ever seen. In fact, when I read it, it makes me happy sex is all behind me!

 

[Toni]

Human penises ( and any other penis I am aware of) have no vacuum function to remove the sperm of other men/males.

Scraping, not suction. Look where the head joins the shaft--the forward facing side is a low angle, the rear-facing side is a very high angle. The low angle does not push as well as the high angle scrapes, the overall effect is any semen already present will tend to be pulled out.

This is the greatest argument for condoms I've ever seen. In fact, when I read it, it makes me happy sex is all behind me!

And the biggest argument for sex ed for adults I’ve heard in a long time.

 

[WAB]

Human penises ( and any other penis I am aware of) have no vacuum function to remove the sperm of other men/males.

Scraping, not suction. Look where the head joins the shaft--the forward facing side is a low angle, the rear-facing side is a very high angle. The low angle does not push as well as the high angle scrapes, the overall effect is any semen already present will tend to be pulled out.

This is the greatest argument for condoms I've ever seen. In fact, when I read it, it makes me happy sex is all behind me!

And the biggest argument for sex ed for adults I’ve heard in a long time.

I'd look to see if there's any truth to Loren's post, but my guts are queasy enough as it is...

 

[Toni]

Human penises ( and any other penis I am aware of) have no vacuum function to remove the sperm of other men/males.

Scraping, not suction. Look where the head joins the shaft--the forward facing side is a low angle, the rear-facing side is a very high angle. The low angle does not push as well as the high angle scrapes, the overall effect is any semen already present will tend to be pulled out.

This is the greatest argument for condoms I've ever seen. In fact, when I read it, it makes me happy sex is all behind me!

And the biggest argument for sex ed for adults I’ve heard in a long time.

I'd look to see if there's any truth to Loren's post, but my guts are queasy enough as it is...

I’m trying not to think about the circumstances where this would be any kind of birth control strategy or strategy to ensure a particular individual is the father of a resulting child.

 

[RVonse]

Realistically, not every person is going to find a partner. That's been the reality for the entirety of human existence.

Exactly correct. I agree 100% on this point and I'm confident science supports that position as well. If we assume not every person finds a suitable partner then what would you say is the next best ideal for society? Is it better for majority of young men loaded with testosterone to either die in war or find a sex partner (like in civilizations of the past)? Or is it better for those same men to live as horny individuals and hope they come out with sex robots in the near future? What about the future of families themselves?

Just for convenience lets call it a sex ratio. Would you believe a civilized society does better when 1 celebrity like Musk enjoys all the sex while large numbers of incels get no sex? Do you believe (as I do) that this so called "sex ratio" at least appears linked to:

1) the gini coefficient of wealth distribution. Women are programmed to prefer security.
2) the extreme empowerment of womens rights. Extremely empowered women of todays western society make no priority or effort to mate with anyone. And the few that do only the very highest quality males are sought after and "the rest of the leftover males" are sitting in their parents basement due to the limited number of jobs given away to the women. Incels enjoying all their testosterone playing video games.

Which would you believe is the better focus for society overall? I can see how the present situation works well for population control but probably not so well for the peaceful or stable population where the majority (both female and male) are completely satisfied and happy.

But I could be convinced otherwise.

 

[Bronzeage]

Incels are screaming and throwing poop. It's what incels do to compensate for low testosterone. A little more T and they could take a shower put on a clean shirt, then actually speak to a woman.

Incel isn't about low T.

I'm not stranger to violence, having judicious meted out plenty in the past. Human society is based on cooperation, not violence. We reserve our violence for other groups, not the members of our group. The idea that the leader of the group is the one who can kick everyone else's ass is an incel fantasy. Everyone has to sleep sometime. A big rock to a sleeping head is an easy response to ass kicking.

Agreed.

Incel is an misnomer. There's nothing involuntary about it. It's the psychology of setting an obtainable goal and blaming the goal, just as much as Aesop's fox and the grapes. The incel is relieved of responsibility for his condition and motivation for trying. Whether this caused by low T or low self esteem, the results are the same, except low self esteem is a self inflicted wound.

 

[WAB]

A long time ago I complained about the word incel. Celibate means voluntary abstinence from sex. But people pooh-poohed me, because they thought I was butthurt and defending 'incels'. You're not celibate if you're just not getting any.

And RVonse, there is this thing called masturbation. One can still ejaculate even if they can't attract a partner. Gets the job done. I've been without a partner since 2009. I'm not dangerously insane yet.

 

[Toni]

Realistically, not every person is going to find a partner. That's been the reality for the entirety of human existence.

Exactly correct. I agree 100% on this point and I'm confident science supports that position as well. If we assume not every person finds a suitable partner then what would you say is the next best ideal for society? Is it better for majority of young men loaded with testosterone to either die in war or find a sex partner (like in civilizations of the past)? Or is it better for those same men to live as horny individuals and hope they come out with sex robots in the near future? What about the future of families themselves?

Just for convenience lets call it a sex ratio. Would you believe a civilized society does better when 1 celebrity like Musk enjoys all the sex while large numbers of incels get no sex? Do you believe (as I do) that this so called "sex ratio" at least appears linked to:

1) the gini coefficient of wealth distribution. Women are programmed to prefer security.
2) the extreme empowerment of womens rights. Extremely empowered women of todays western society make no priority or effort to mate with anyone. And the few that do only the very highest quality males are sought after and "the rest of the leftover males" are sitting in their parents basement due to the limited number of jobs given away to the women. Incels enjoying all their testosterone playing video games.

Which would you believe is the better focus for society overall? I can see how the present situation works well for population control but probably not so well for the peaceful or stable population where the majority (both female and male) are completely satisfied and happy.

But I could be convinced otherwise.

As loathe as many seem to be to even entertain the idea, what women want and need also does play a role—albeit, historically not a large enough role in most societies.

Amazingly enough, women have sexual needs and desires that have never been well supported in Western society, particularly when considering that many if not most women also desire other aspects of their lives that do not center on meeting the sexual needs of men or pregnancy and rearing of resulting children.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Human penises ( and any other penis I am aware of) have no vacuum function to remove the sperm of other men/males.

Scraping, not suction. Look where the head joins the shaft--the forward facing side is a low angle, the rear-facing side is a very high angle. The low angle does not push as well as the high angle scrapes, the overall effect is any semen already present will tend to be pulled out.

This is the greatest argument for condoms I've ever seen. In fact, when I read it, it makes me happy sex is all behind me!

And the biggest argument for sex ed for adults I’ve heard in a long time.

I'd look to see if there's any truth to Loren's post, but my guts are queasy enough as it is...

It would seem the burden goes the other way.

If it’s true he should be able to demonstrate it’s truth before you have any obligation to believe it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And you're not interpreting it right. First is probably the winner, but scraping out semen reduces the handicap of not being first.

Ohmyfuckinggod: You seem to believe that women regularly line guys up and let them ejaculate, one after another.

Honestly, Loren. That’s just ignorant.

You aren't being willing to accept it because it goes against your ideas, you aren't addressing the reality.

That’s a mirror you’re looking into. Honestly, Loren, you are being willfully ignorant. US history is filled with the names of people who grew up in poverty and rose to great heights because of their intellectual talents and hard work. And we have an extremely prominent example of someone born into great wealth and privilege who is no one’s idea of an intelligent man sitting in the Oval Office right now—or golfing or on the toilet. Who knows.

How is that supposed to be remotely relevant?

And note that there's a big difference between being poor (lack of money) and poverty (attitudes towards money handling.) Many people climb out of the former, few climb out of the latter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Human penises ( and any other penis I am aware of) have no vacuum function to remove the sperm of other men/males.

Scraping, not suction. Look where the head joins the shaft--the forward facing side is a low angle, the rear-facing side is a very high angle. The low angle does not push as well as the high angle scrapes, the overall effect is any semen already present will tend to be pulled out.

This is the greatest argument for condoms I've ever seen. In fact, when I read it, it makes me happy sex is all behind me!

And the biggest argument for sex ed for adults I’ve heard in a long time.

I'd look to see if there's any truth to Loren's post, but my guts are queasy enough as it is...

I’m trying not to think about the circumstances where this would be any kind of birth control strategy or strategy to ensure a particular individual is the father of a resulting child.

Such things evolved long before there was a concept of birth control.

As for the reality:

It's never been proven but in the lab it appears to happen:

(Note: Paywall, I'm looking at the snippets, I do not have access to the paper.)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513803000163

Simulating a sexual encounter in vitro, we found that phalluses with a glans/coronal ridge configuration that approximated a human penis resulted in appreciable displacement of simulated semen. Depth of thrusting was also an important parameter, with significant displacement occurring only when the penis was inserted 75% or more of the way into the vagina, forcing the semen under the frenulum and causing it to flow back around the shaft and collect behind the coronal ridge (see Fig. 2).

 

[Toni]

And you're not interpreting it right. First is probably the winner, but scraping out semen reduces the handicap of not being first.

Ohmyfuckinggod: You seem to believe that women regularly line guys up and let them ejaculate, one after another.

Honestly, Loren. That’s just ignorant.

You aren't being willing to accept it because it goes against your ideas, you aren't addressing the reality.

That’s a mirror you’re looking into. Honestly, Loren, you are being willfully ignorant. US history is filled with the names of people who grew up in poverty and rose to great heights because of their intellectual talents and hard work. And we have an extremely prominent example of someone born into great wealth and privilege who is no one’s idea of an intelligent man sitting in the Oval Office right now—or golfing or on the toilet. Who knows.

How is that supposed to be remotely relevant?

And note that there's a big difference between being poor (lack of money) and poverty (attitudes towards money handling.) Many people climb out of the former, few climb out of the latter.

I provided a counterpoint to whatever you want to call that bit of bigotry you posted.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Realistically, not every person is going to find a partner. That's been the reality for the entirety of human existence.

Exactly correct. I agree 100% on this point and I'm confident science supports that position as well. If we assume not every person finds a suitable partner then what would you say is the next best ideal for society? Is it better for majority of young men loaded with testosterone to either die in war or find a sex partner (like in civilizations of the past)? Or is it better for those same men to live as horny individuals and hope they come out with sex robots in the near future? What about the future of families themselves?

Just for convenience lets call it a sex ratio. Would you believe a civilized society does better when 1 celebrity like Musk enjoys all the sex while large numbers of incels get no sex? Do you believe (as I do) that this so called "sex ratio" at least appears linked to:

Under every system that has existed the rich gain unequal access to sex. You're not proposing a solution.

1) the gini coefficient of wealth distribution. Women are programmed to prefer security.

"Programmed"?? People want a more comfortable life!

2) the extreme empowerment of womens rights. Extremely empowered women of todays western society make no priority or effort to mate with anyone. And the few that do only the very highest quality males are sought after and "the rest of the leftover males" are sitting in their parents basement due to the limited number of jobs given away to the women. Incels enjoying all their testosterone playing video games.

So the women should be forced into sexual slavery?

And women are not competition for jobs. In the long run the job market responds to the labor supply. More labor, lower wages, companies hire more, workers have more money, they buy more. It's a sensitive balance, small swings in either direction have big economic effects. But because of those big economic effects things return to balance fairly quickly.

Besides, it's not like women weren't working before. It's that most women weren't working outside the home. Women in the labor force in large numbers corresponds with lots of labor-saving devices showing up in homes. It's not like she needs to work full time at home just to keep the house going.

Look at the world. Most people find partners. It's not only the high quality ones that do, it's only the low quality (but note that quality is subjective--a lot of incels appear to be on the autism spectrum. Screws you over pretty badly on interpersonal stuff without making you a bad person) ones that don't.

I do think things have gotten worse in recent years but this has nothing to with women's rights or the like. Rather, the problem is dating apps. If the user of a dating app finds a life partner they are lost as a customer. In a sensible marketplace you would see a range of apps catering to different audiences, but in the real world you have basically a monopoly because all the ones aimed at long term relationships have been bought out and turned into more hookup garbage. The government should have been doing it's job and prohibited such things for anti-trust reasons, but they have been doing a very poor job of that for a long time now.

Which would you believe is the better focus for society overall? I can see how the present situation works well for population control but probably not so well for the peaceful or stable population where the majority (both female and male) are completely satisfied and happy.

But I could be convinced otherwise.

You aren't proposing any solution unless you think sexual slavery is a good thing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Incels are screaming and throwing poop. It's what incels do to compensate for low testosterone. A little more T and they could take a shower put on a clean shirt, then actually speak to a woman.

Incel isn't about low T.

I'm not stranger to violence, having judicious meted out plenty in the past. Human society is based on cooperation, not violence. We reserve our violence for other groups, not the members of our group. The idea that the leader of the group is the one who can kick everyone else's ass is an incel fantasy. Everyone has to sleep sometime. A big rock to a sleeping head is an easy response to ass kicking.

Agreed.

Incel is an misnomer. There's nothing involuntary about it. It's the psychology of setting an obtainable goal and blaming the goal, just as much as Aesop's fox and the grapes. The incel is relieved of responsibility for his condition and motivation for trying. Whether this caused by low T or low self esteem, the results are the same, except low self esteem is a self inflicted wound.

People who have problems in the social sphere have problems in the romantic sphere. Dating is hard enough without the deck being stacked against you.

 

[Bronzeage]

Incels are screaming and throwing poop. It's what incels do to compensate for low testosterone. A little more T and they could take a shower put on a clean shirt, then actually speak to a woman.

Incel isn't about low T.

I'm not stranger to violence, having judicious meted out plenty in the past. Human society is based on cooperation, not violence. We reserve our violence for other groups, not the members of our group. The idea that the leader of the group is the one who can kick everyone else's ass is an incel fantasy. Everyone has to sleep sometime. A big rock to a sleeping head is an easy response to ass kicking.

Agreed.

Incel is an misnomer. There's nothing involuntary about it. It's the psychology of setting an obtainable goal and blaming the goal, just as much as Aesop's fox and the grapes. The incel is relieved of responsibility for his condition and motivation for trying. Whether this caused by low T or low self esteem, the results are the same, except low self esteem is a self inflicted wound.

People who have problems in the social sphere have problems in the romantic sphere. Dating is hard enough without the deck being stacked against you.

Who is stacking the deck?

 

[RVonse]

You aren't proposing any solution unless you think sexual slavery is a good thing.

IMHO, female empowerment could be reduced without making them sexual slaves.

Would you call decreasing female empowerment to the extent it at least makes economic sense for them to partner with a male person sexual slavery? Would you call increasing the female incentive for the biological father of her offspring to help raise their children sexual slavery?

Both of those solutions decrease female empowerment without making them into sexual slaves IMO.

So those are atleast 2 solutions I would not call sexual slavery. Perhaps you still disagree. But if you do still disagree that begs the question why you would not call everyone who labors at a job a slave? Most everyone in the world is incentivized to do things we would not otherwise do just for our survival.

 

[laughing dog]

You aren't proposing any solution unless you think sexual slavery is a good thing.

IMHO, female empowerment could be reduced without making them sexual slaves.

WTF? Female empowerment is not the problem. If some men are having problems finding partners that will accept them, they are the problem.

BTW, providing incentives is empowering choice.

 

[Tigers!]

Simulating a sexual encounter in vitro, we found that phalluses with a glans/coronal ridge configuration that approximated a human penis resulted in appreciable displacement of simulated semen. Depth of thrusting was also an important parameter, with significant displacement occurring only when the penis was inserted 75% or more of the way into the vagina, forcing the semen under the frenulum and causing it to flow back around the shaft and collect behind the coronal ridge (see Fig. 2).

That's certainly far more I learnt about this particuar topic than I ever wished to know.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

You aren't proposing any solution unless you think sexual slavery is a good thing.

IMHO, female empowerment could be reduced without making them sexual slaves.

WTF? Female empowerment is not the problem. If some men are having problems finding partners that will accept them, they are the problem.

BTW, providing incentives is empowering choice.

Eh I'm personally willing to just say some people (men and women) are unattractive so that makes it harder for them. But no one should obsess over relationships or sex so much to the point where it's causing depression or whatever, and if they do they need therapy.