Could women be sexually and emotionally satisfied in a society without any men?

could women be sexually and emotionally satisfied in a society without any men?

Other urls found in this thread:

popsci.com/science/article/2011-05/come-again-science-semen-part-deux
twitter.com/AnonBabble

The very own meaning of life is to surpass those earthly desires and transcend to a state where you're attached to nothing but God. So a menless or a womenless society would only work if everyone was compromised to get rid of their human instincts, to stop being slaves of themselves, to have full control of their thoughts and emotions and to become their own masters.

If we're talking about a society that can reproduce without males and guarantee that every new fetus will be female, then it's not unreasonable to assume they can also be engineered to all be lesbians.

what about without genetic engineering? (sperm is dropped from helicopters or something)

Well if having relations with other women is the only option then that's what they'll take. If they grew up without any contact with men then it's likely most of them will be lesbians anyway. Of course you're going to have outliers that just won't find women attractive no matter what, but there are a handful of asexuals in every society anyway.

This is debatable. It is unclear how much of sexual preference is genetic and how much is environmental. I recall a study that showed homosexuality is mostly due to environmental factors, however the chance of the epigenetic change occurring was small in and of itself.

While I imagine some would make the change to lesbian (and I also believe women are more open to it than men), I do not believe it would be a substantial part of the population.

As well, I do not believe they would be emotionally satisfied without men but that'd take longer to explain.

i love you Veeky Forums

No. The inverse is equally true

>attached to god
>become own master
Something seems off here.

Probably. We do know that you couldn't though.

To me the genetic preference is a lot off reality.

I mean when we are born, our brains are like new computers with fucking nothing, we basically don´t even know how to move, how could genetics influence something like that? and if our brains are one of the most elastic organs it makes a lot more sense being environmental. I mean if you don´t stimulate a children they will simply die


In Freudian theory they say it is totally environmental, and the sexuality is defined until the first cut of the brain(around 6-8 years)

(they say first cut because this is the time, when the brain "closes" the basic lessons, and start getting ready to the second cut, which will happen in the end of puberty)


BTW it is funny, how most gay people I met, always had a particular kind of dad, usually a rough manly dad, which they seek being loved most then their moms.

correct, women wanting to find men to breed with is a social construct

>our brains are as like new computers with fucking nothing
no, not at all
a lot of behaviour, if not most of it, is biologically determined
blank slate theory is garbage only still bought into by social engineers
>In Freudian theory
pseud

>Freudian theory

Freud is a joke within psychological fields


>BTW it is funny.....

nah bro

Would the society begin with no men

or would men be removed?

In the latter society I think women could not be emotionally and sexually satisfied.

No, there's a whole range of biochemical changes in women when men ejaculate into them and when they have children.

curious

share source(s)?

I knew that about giving birth, but not being ejaculated into

Hot

Implying a lot of studies are not showing women are all bissexual or lesbian, while we can argue that people with more advanced age show less signs of that

What do you mean by biologically determined? yes they are, but who thought that to your brain if not your parents, or parents figure?

If someone slaps you you act like X, it is in your genetics that? are you a doctor or some sort or just an average Veeky Forums faggot?

I know many parents who are the "alphas" and have "betas" sons, so it does not make a lot of sense genetics in those terms, but it does make sense in Freudian terms, the dad wanting to dominate everyone and the son accepting to be dominated.

All I am saying, claiming genetics is responsible by behavior is a big step which it is not proved at all.

Your DNA change during your lifetime, so it can be possible certain behaviors lead to a change in the genes
> studies show alcohol leads to more socialization if drunk in an adequate way
> your gene changes
> some geneticist maps a bunch of people
> ohh nigga, some people who rated higher in socialization have some genes in common.
> IT MUST BE THE GENES TALKING

That is why you can´t prove shit, and Freud might be just as right


Not really, in his terms and if you consider the technology he had, he predicted a lot of neurological phenomenons with pure observation, and his theory actually helped a lot of people, Placebo or not, he managed to make correct observations and draw conclusions based on people he studied.

The two neurological cuts for instance, he predicted that shit without anything besides empiricism, neurology years later showed he was right, the Édipo complex coincidentally occurs when the first cut happens.

behavioral psychology most of the time don´t solve the cause of rooted problems, while Freudian does, his Technic consist on going to the part of the brain with the problem and refraining, something that neurologically makes all sense.

there wouldn't be a society without men

>biochemical changes in women when men ejaculate
A search reveals some rather shaky "research":
popsci.com/science/article/2011-05/come-again-science-semen-part-deux

Popsci is VERY fitting here. Got a better cite?

>implying

You've never heard of instinctual fears like spiders, snakes, rats, blood, height, etc.? These aren't learned behavior. Children that have never seen them before are still scared of them without actually knowing anything about them. It's very likely that the desire to breed is hardwired an most people, though not all of course. Much like how many people don't have any of the fears above either.

Cunts are only satisfied with and attracted to money. If there is money, bitches will be satisfied. Simple as that.

Will they be satisfied without their smartphones?
Because men are needed to mine the materials that are used to make them, unless they're going to enter the mining business in droves themselves.

They'd be dead without men so no, I guess..

...

they say the greatest form of pleasure is when 2 women scissor. that is the best point of orgasm for heterosexual women/men homosexual men and lesbian women

The problem with this is that these are western, highly privileged women. If they had been women living in the third world, or at least a country that doesn't pamper women the way they are pampered in the west, things would have gone a lot differently.

HAHAHAHAHA

This desu
Third world women are very different

This man speaks the truth