PDA

View Full Version : The disappearing male


Bashar
October 3rd, 2009, 13:00
i was watching this documentary on tv last night

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7530701744597358451#

some interesting facts it raises:

- chemicals that are everywhere today are affecting the development of males from conception to death. this is stuff found in plastic, food, by products of plants, it's in the air we breathe and the water we drink.

- the 1950s saw the birth of the first generation of kids who were the most affected by these toxins. they bind to testosterone receptors even very early on during fetal development and keep testosterone from doing all it should do with the body. "essentially, baby males are born without having reached completely hormone influenced maleness."

-places where there are very high levels of toxins in the air have communities with 3 times as many girls than boys. and most are born infertile or with an undescended testicle. some become infertile eventually

-college males today produce less than half the sperm their fathers did. they are literally half as fertile as the generation before them.

-what does the government think? oh well they chicken out of the serious stuff as always. they dismissed findings made by accredited institutions as being miscalculated and unreasonable. of course they have the nerve to do that, it's the same damn government that won't talk about mgm.

so basically if circumcision's got you down, don't feel too down about it. even males with foreskins are not as male as they could be, with respect to hormonally developed sexual anatomy, because of contamination of their cells from the very first one to the last one. in light of that, no male on this earth knows what they're missing out on except for the ones that still live with nature....

and then there's mgm...

Joseph
October 4th, 2009, 00:36
It's all this big conspiracy to bring down the world's population.

Abortion, birth control, circumcision, chemicals in the water, it's all a part of it.

That's why the government plays dumb.

;)

I think if you think anti-circumcision/pro-intactivists are against circumcision because "it makes men feel like less than men," you're missing the point.

Bashar
October 4th, 2009, 03:01
i think anti-circ groups are anti-circ because it's not even a form of idiocy and evil i can put in words. but the government has it coming if they think their political power puts power in in anything non-political. namely nature. these people are denying everything because they know they'll pass and their children, who they love putting so much hope in as it would seem, will have to deal with solving everything. these people are all talk. it's politics. it's the government.

and by saying "man", wherever i did in the post i made, i meant the natural and ideal archetype of a male homo sapien. let's be clear about one thing: there is no scale to being "manly" or "womanly" like reality tv show stars may think. but the metaphorical distance you travel to the perfection of your developing body is diminished if you are a boy in the fetus. not by a small amount either. some towns really do have more than triple the amount of girls than boys

Joseph
October 4th, 2009, 03:40
..."essentially, baby males are born without having reached manhood, or malehood, really"

...most are born infertile or with an undescended testicle. some become infertile eventually

-college males today produce less than half the sperm their fathers did. they are literally half as fertile as the generation before them.

...if circumcision's got you down, don't feel too down about it. even men with foreskins are not all the men they could be because of contamination of their cells from the very first one to the last one.

What exactly are you talking about here?

What do you refer to as "manly," when was the "ideal" superman that created supersperm with large balls and major cock established?

That's what it sounds like you're trying to say here.

That men shouldn't feel too bad about their circumcisions because they're "less men" then their ancestors were anyway.

A man is a man, plain and simple. You're not less of a man because the circumstances that be are that men produce less sperm today than they did a while ago. Or because you're missing a foreskin that was supposed to be there anyway.

If a doctor cuts off your testicles and you are now infertile, that would be one thing.

But a circumcision is something over which otherwise smart people have full control over, and use it to exert a forced bodily modification on an unwitting individual.

Either way, I don't think people in here feel they're "less men," in whatever sense, for being circumcised. Rather, they feel violated and they wish to gain something back.

It is CIRCUMCISED men who don't want to feel they're missing anything that feel that intactivism is an attack on their manhood.

I feel this post is interesting in that it affects men as a member of the human species in general.

However I feel comparing the decrease in hormones due to environmental influences to circumcision, which basically takes a born human being and cuts off a part of his body, however "fully formed" or "manly" it already is, is like comparing apples to oranges.

I think the comment to men an their feelings about their circumcision was kind of unnecessary, if not presumptuous.

Lonewolf
October 4th, 2009, 03:41
You are so full of sh*t that your eyes are brown... show me some concrete statistics... give me some documentation... tell us where you got this information besides this silly "documentary."

Tell me what city in the world has a population that is 75% female, and the 25% males are deformed, or whatever. I'm not buying all this crap.

Yunus
October 4th, 2009, 03:58
You are so full of sh*t that your eyes are brown... show me some concrete statistics... give me some documentation... tell us where you got this information besides this silly "documentary."

Tell me what city in the world has a population that is 75% female, and the 25% males are deformed, or whatever. I'm not buying all this crap.

I think that there are 75% females & 25% males or less of populations in war ages mostly like World War I & II.
I doubt that these populations still exist at many areas.
I'm sure that there are so very few areas which have that population.

As far as I know,China has around 67% males & 33% females of its population.
China has the highest number of male population & intact males.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Lonewolf
October 4th, 2009, 09:00
I think that there are 75% females & 25% males or less of populations in war ages mostly like World War I & II.
I doubt that these populations still exist at many areas.
I'm sure that there are so very few areas which have that population.

As far as I know,China has around 67% males & 33% females of its population.
China has the highest number of male population & intact males.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yes I agree on the numbers in china BUT.... once again this is because of other issues. With china it was from over population. couples were only allowed one child. they would only have males to carry on the family line. this has cause distorted numbers male to female there. Has nothing to do with wether they are cut or not..

Yunus
October 4th, 2009, 09:10
Yes I agree on the numbers in china BUT.... once again this is because of other issues. With china it was from over population. couples were only allowed one child. they would only have males to carry on the family line. this has cause distorted numbers male to female there. Has nothing to do with wether they are cut or not..

As far as I know,the "only child" law in China was ended some years ago.
But,I liked very much being an only child. :D

Joseph
October 4th, 2009, 09:43
As far as I know,the "only child" law in China was ended some years ago.
But,I liked very much being an only child. :D

Actually, no, it's still pretty much in effect.

Women are forced to have abortions, and the family planning police comes around farm-houses to steal children, or force their parents to give them up for adoption because Chinese orphanages get a 3,000 fee for selling a child to parents who want it in the States.

The parents getting a Chinese child are told that the child was "abandoned," the family planning guy gets his cut, and that's the end of that.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2009/09/27/in_china_dark_side_of_adoption_exposed/?rss_id=Boston.com%20--%20World%20news

One of the biggest issues with the quakes that happened recently in China, where schools collapsed on top of children is that the majority were only children, product of the one-child policy. After having a child, parents are forced to get sterilized, so they can't have more children, and so many families, that's the end of their lineage.

But that is due to a policy and people enforcing it, not because global warming has caused women and men to make less gametes.

Completely different.

Yunus
October 4th, 2009, 10:54
Actually, no, it's still pretty much in effect.

Women are forced to have abortions, and the family planning police comes around farm-houses to steal children, or force their parents to give them up for adoption because Chinese orphanages get a 3,000 fee for selling a child to parents who want it in the States.

The parents getting a Chinese child are told that the child was "abandoned," the family planning guy gets his cut, and that's the end of that.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2009/09/27/in_china_dark_side_of_adoption_exposed/?rss_id=Boston.com%20--%20World%20news

One of the biggest issues with the quakes that happened recently in China, where schools collapsed on top of children is that the majority were only children, product of the one-child policy. After having a child, parents are forced to get sterilized, so they can't have more children, and so many families, that's the end of their lineage.

But that is due to a policy and people enforcing it, not because global warming has caused women and men to make less gametes.

Completely different.

Yes,I know it.
I know a lot about China because I'm descendant of Chinese people & was born in Indonesia. :D
My parent have me as their only child with their awareness & will.My mom didn't get sterilized.

admin
October 4th, 2009, 10:57
It's all this big conspiracy to bring down the world's population.

If only there was such a conspiracy, I'd be in favor of exposing it and hailing the instigators as heroes.

Bashar
October 4th, 2009, 11:51
However I feel comparing the decrease in hormones due to environmental influences to circumcision, which basically takes a born human being and cuts off a part of his body, however "fully formed" or "manly" it already is, is like comparing apples to oranges.

I think the comment to men an their feelings about their circumcision was kind of unnecessary, if not presumptuous.

i am sorry if it was interpreted that way but like i said in my previous post that was not my intent, sorry. i wouldn't come on here to say something that presumptuous when it fully applies to me, that's just me though. maybe i should've stuck with the word "male" and listened to my doubts. i wasn't comparing the two, that's why i wrote "and then there's MGM" at the end of my first post. if i were to compare, i'd say based on the info: sperm production has decreased and infertility has increased, testicular descent has lessened and decreased, sperm motility has decreased, abnormal sperm count increased, testosterone levels decreased, penile cancer among other male cancers have increased in occurrence... between today's men and their ancestors.

thinking about it again i'm sure i should've just stuck with "male" throughout the post. maybe i can better explain myself by saying that when a man's lost 50% of his sexual anatomy it scars his growth as a person because he will not experience it the way intact men will. regardless of restoration or nature's intent. i was stressing the fact that many men are "missing out" like we've been saying. that was the only thing me bringing up circumcision had to do with it.

but i am not sitting here calling myself less of a man because of chemical contamination my entire life and i am not less of a man because the doctor who actually was less of a man cut me. i'd like to direct this to the sloppy governments who have humiliated themselves through their work and hid it behind lies that will add to the humiliation once exposed.

Bashar
October 4th, 2009, 12:02
You are so full of sh*t that your eyes are brown... show me some concrete statistics... give me some documentation... tell us where you got this information besides this silly "documentary."

Tell me what city in the world has a population that is 75% female, and the 25% males are deformed, or whatever. I'm not buying all this crap.

uhm... if this documentary is silly then you can leave how full of shit i am alone and talk about that with the documentary. i was telling you things that were in the documentary and without sounding as blunt as you, i was just posting this for others' opinions on the documentary and not for an evaluation of how full of shit i must be for doing so.. but thanks for your 2 cents.

if you want some concrete statistics look it up on google. you'll find something easily enough and i hope you don't come back here telling me how wrong the findings are like i'm the one who made them.

i can't remember what it was called but the city is near Sarnia Ontario. watch the documentary. i wonder if you did because i'm not sure you'd ask that question otherwise but hey, it's not my place to judge whether or not you bothered to.

Joseph
October 4th, 2009, 16:57
If only there was such a conspiracy, I'd be in favor of exposing it and hailing the instigators as heroes.

You do realize I was being cynical right?

Joseph
October 4th, 2009, 17:02
uhm... if this documentary is silly then you can leave how full of shit i am alone and talk about that with the documentary. i was telling you things that were in the documentary and without sounding as blunt as you, i was just posting this for others' opinions on the documentary and not for an evaluation of how full of shit i must be for doing so.. but thanks for your 2 cents.

if you want some concrete statistics look it up on google. you'll find something easily enough and i hope you don't come back here telling me how wrong the findings are like i'm the one who made them.

i can't remember what it was called but the city is near Sarnia Ontario. watch the documentary. i wonder if you did because i'm not sure you'd ask that question otherwise but hey, it's not my place to judge whether or not you bothered to.

No offence Bashar, but as long as you're going to be posting about a subject, the burden of proof is on you.

Usually, when people make claims, it's their responsibility to quote their sources.

People verify those sources, and then decide if they're trustworthy or not. (Unless they really want to believe in something without actually having to look it up, such as the effectiveness of circumcision in preventing HIV.)

Though he probably could have been more tactful, Lonewolf is right; you need something better than this documentary, man.

Billybobbed
October 4th, 2009, 18:07
I look at it this way. If there are more girls being born thats great. There will be less competition between us males. Who the hell wants a society of mostly men? Yeech.

Joseph
October 4th, 2009, 19:39
I look at it this way. If there are more girls being born thats great. There will be less competition between us males. Who the hell wants a society of mostly men? Yeech.

I think Bashar is more afraid of, as the title of this thread, the male sex disappearing completely.

That's not too much of an unfounded fear; I have read some ultra-feminist literature where men are basically reduced to living sperm banks.

There seems to be more and more "studies" aiming to make the male sex absolete. IE, studies in creating sperm from skin cells, studies in trying to create sperm from females (so that lesbians could finally have a baby that is genetically their own, instead of having to depend on the reality that they need sperm from a man....)

I believe there is a movement to nullify the male sex to some extent.

Maybe not in the conspiracy-theory sense that I believe the government is intentionally putting feminizing chemicals in the water, but still, enough that people can't seem to find more ways to belittle men.

Women didn't want to be seen as mere baby-making machines or as a kitchen appliance.

Yet, men are reduced to sperm banks who should "be a man," join the military and make this country safe.

Women don't want to be seen as the "weaker sex," I personally don't want to be seen as someone of a disposeable sex.

It's an idea that is behind circumcision as well; the idea that it's OK to circumcise boys, but under no circumstances should a scalpel ever make it close to a vulva.

1Taoist
October 4th, 2009, 19:42
Joseph makes a good point, albeit not the one I think he directly meant.

Just because there is less sperm production doesn't make men less of men. Men are a product of humanity, which fluxuates with all sorts of ebbs and flows. Nowhere does it say WE, meaning all our plastic and such, are responsible for lowered sperm. Sometimes...sometimes...nature itself alters this, even on a collective level, unconsciously, in response to global conditions. Just as the global weather changes patterns, melts, heats, freezes, etc, are we to not think the collective thing that is humanity doesn't do this also?

And if it does, even in the face of pollutants and such, how is conservation of essence a bad thing? Are we to always measure the thing called man simply on the pattern displayed at any random time in evolution?

I think not.

cobra
October 4th, 2009, 20:34
Scientists make leaps of deduction based on limited facts. Like digging up a fossilized toe bone and deducing the entire animal it belonged to, then saying it is the missing link of humanity-- evolution solved, and gimme that Nobel! Just state the facts and leave it at that. This is the kind of science that says circumcision reduces AIDS transmission. If we are producing less sperm, it is probably because we NEED less sperm. We're not exactly going out fighting bears and hunting mammoths anymore.

1Taoist
October 4th, 2009, 22:30
True. And we are jackin off to WAY MORE porn than dudes in the '50's. Perhaps our bodies are conserving cuz they know the difference- when we are jackin, we're gettin a limited sperm-shunt and a solid mental nut. We are a current society that spends HOURS masturbating and are freely admitting it. In the old days you got that shit overwith quick, lest somebody catch you. Nowadays people catch you and they watch, maybe join in.

The body has a certain intelligence. I'd really like to see a study on the sperm levels of a man when he has vaginal sex vs anal sex. Or even blowjobs. It's shown that there is a dif between jackin and intercourse. There's even a dif between a man's load in a pussy he hasn't inseminated in 4 days and one he has 1 day before. In terms of numbers- sperm motility and quantity -these facts make interesting science. Perhaps in WW2 times men made more sperm cuz the collective species (whether you believe in this stuff or not) was dying at war and population was not as high, planetarily. Many scientists have proposed this explanation for periodic plague- even STD's. It's a self-regulating system, kids.

Taoist philosophy has always held that sperm production is a costly endeavor for the human being. That's why they don't believe in over-taxing that system. I, personally, believe that wisdom has shifted a bit: because sexuality is so technologized, so mentally driven and stimulus-oriented, the human male can release sperm more regularly without the same loss of vitality. That's Taoist-speak for the metabolic cost of sperm production. Perhaps in the older days the body produced sperm in a more dense process, thus incurring a denser cost. The stimulus was less driven by material stimulus for the average men (emperors and royalty excluded) and more physical. Nowadays any man can fire up a computer and nut to the hottest chicks in the world doing the kinkiest shit imaginable. In the old days, only rich royalty ever got to watch two girls fist each other and get DP'd by several men, or get a cum-bath on their faces by a gang of hung dudes, cum-swappin to each other and fem-ejaculating across a room all over each other's pretty faces and tits, or spreading their assholes so wide you can see the inside of her stomach while she sucks some black dude's awesomely-large cock...

Think about that.

Billybobbed
October 5th, 2009, 08:18
If there is anything to the conspiracy of population control, the powers that be are going about it wrong. By producing more females it's going to make things worse. One male can service many females there by compounding the problem. If they were to produce more males and less females then the population would reduce. I'm glad there are more females. I not only will have a wider selection to choose from but also have more of them thereby satisfying my buried ancient instincts. I can be like a deer buck in the stink of rut, gathering my does in the fall, and insuring my genetic strains for the following year.:D

Joseph
October 5th, 2009, 08:22
Not if there are no males left, and not if the only males left produce little to no sperm there, bucko.

:D

Yunus
October 5th, 2009, 09:08
I guess that these males,who are producing a few of sperms,have a few of sperms because they do masturbation too often,so they seem that they produce a few of sperms. :):):)

1Taoist
October 5th, 2009, 10:03
Little to no sperm? Dude, have that checked.

1Taoist
October 5th, 2009, 10:07
Billybobbed: that deer buck in the stink of a rut line at the end of your post was lyrical genius. Poetry of the penis. I raise my glass of Deer-penis wine to that. Please continue with your spoken word prose.

Yunus
October 5th, 2009, 10:13
Little to no sperm? Dude, have that checked.

I think that male won't be out of sperms because the male body will produce it all over of the age of adult male. :):):)

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

wildfox
October 5th, 2009, 11:48
True. And we are jackin off to WAY MORE porn...

The body has a certain intelligence. I'd really like to see a study on the sperm levels of a man when he has vaginal sex vs anal sex. Or even blowjobs. It's shown that there is a dif between jackin and intercourse. There's even a dif between a man's load in a pussy he hasn't inseminated in 4 days and one he has 1 day before. In terms of numbers- sperm motility and quantity -these facts make interesting science. ...
Taoist philosophy has always held that sperm production is a costly endeavor for the human being. That's why they don't believe in over-taxing that system. I, personally, believe that wisdom has shifted a bit: because sexuality is so technologized, so mentally driven and stimulus-oriented, the human male can release sperm more regularly without the same loss of vitality. That's Taoist-speak for the metabolic cost of sperm production. Perhaps in the older days the body produced sperm in a more dense process, thus incurring a denser cost. The stimulus was less driven by material stimulus for the average men (emperors and royalty excluded) and more physical. ...

Think about that.

I'd rather not.

1Taoist
October 5th, 2009, 13:17
No idea what that means. Love random quips that add nothing.

Joseph
October 5th, 2009, 17:13
No idea what that means. Love random quips that add nothing.

And it shows.

;)

Billybobbed
October 5th, 2009, 19:58
Billybobbed: that deer buck in the stink of a rut line at the end of your post was lyrical genius. Poetry of the penis. I raise my glass of Deer-penis wine to that. Please continue with your spoken word prose.

Thanks. I figured all of the hot-blooded males here would like that one.:D Imagine every fall gathering all the females in estrus you can find, service them, and then spend the rest of the year drinking beer. Life would be grand.

Joseph
October 5th, 2009, 21:26
"A girl must be like a blossom
With honey for just one man.
A man must be like honey bee
And gather all he can.
To fly from blossom to blossom
A honey bee must be free,
But blossom must not ever fly
From bee to bee to bee."
~The King And I

Billy, not that I wouldn't find such a life alluring, however, being the pessimist that I am, I can't help but to think of alternate consequences.

A different result in a surplus of does and a shortage of bucks could mean that the roles reverse; the does start fighting for the buck's favor given the short supply of sperm.

But at least if it were as you said, "...gathering all the females in estrus you can find, service them, and then spend the rest of the year drinking beer."

Yes, life would be grand.

:D

1Taoist
October 5th, 2009, 23:44
Too bad people are not bees. Or blossoming flowers.

Talk about a lack of sperm. Think you're in estrus.

Joseph
October 5th, 2009, 23:46
Talk about a lack of sperm. Think you're in estrus.

Yep... used mine all up.

;-)

Billybobbed
October 6th, 2009, 08:38
"
the does start fighting for the buck's favor given the short supply of sperm.
:D

Imagine having 10 does hanging around you "fawning for fawns".:D At the end of the rut you would need the rest of the year to drink beer and recouperate for the next season.

1Taoist
October 6th, 2009, 10:57
Is it possible to rut enough to wanna take the rest of the year off? I'd say if you do, you're doin it wrong.

1Taoist
October 6th, 2009, 13:36
In regards to this thread's topic, Robert Mapplethorpe's work "polyester suit" reflects artistically his feeling at the time of the disappearing male. The pic is of a black man in a polyester suit and his fly open, and protruding from it is his enormous uncut penis.

What he was indicating is how far we've come from the natural man. Not only did people in America recoil at the sight of a big, black snake but one uncut, and this was considered indecent and banned from public viewing. The polyester suit indicates a synthetically-clothed man, versus a natural man. His uncut state is being freed, the natural man's identity exposed, making us confront our unconscious views of the intact male, the size of his genitals emphasizing the importance of this piece of ourselves, taken from us.