| >And I don't understand why people absolutely need to have biological children. Consider these possibilities: 1. A best case scenario is that what you have expressed is a personal opinion that takes your genes out of the future in a Marty McFly fading away fashion as this opinion hardens. Fine. Your choice. More pie for the rest of us. 2. A worst case scenario where this opinion accumulates in the market place of ideas and inevitably leads to human extinction. Impossible right? Well, know that disgust with sex is climbing in rich nations (like Germany and Japan) and the number of births per woman is falling. Is this a function of wealth, or technology? South Korea has fewer than 1.1 births per woman. That can only translate into a poorer, older, and smaller country for the future. [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/KOR/south-korea/fertil... (I tell people that this was the thickly veiled premise of the movie Bird Box.) If that is true, then can it be called a choice? Are people actually choosing to have fewer sexual partners than their parents generation? Are people really choosing to feel disgust at the thought of intimate contact? Maybe repulsion-to-sex is a bigger threat to continued human existence as nuclear weapons. Another fun article: https://medium.com/migration-issues/how-long-until-were-all-... |
I don't think it's bad to find sex repulsing. I mean, sex is inherently disgusting. It involves naked bodies and bodily fluids. You can'g describe sex in a way that doesn't sound repulsing.
Besides, people can have children without having sex through IVF. But if a woman is repulsed by sex, I can totally see why she would also be repulsed by pregnancy.