Sperm Made From Female Bone Marrow, Men Obsolete? 459
Shaitan Apistos writes "British scientists have discovered a way to turn female bone marrow into sperm, allowing women to reproduce without the need of male companionship. All children born of this method would be female, due the lack Y chromosomes, and there is high chance of birth defects. Eggs also can be created from male bone marrow, but men looking to reproduce would still need to find a surrogate mother to handle the gestation period. I'd like to take a moment to welcome our new amazonian overlords and remind them that men are still very good at mowing lawns and fixing cars."
Re:Too bad.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet (Score:5, Insightful)
But many women like the, ahem, companionship of other women. If this has a genetic basis (almost certain) then the genetic offspring of two such women is very likely to feel the same way. A female-only subculture is almost certainly on the way.
The depressing thing is, as a man I can't really think of why we should be allowed to stick around.
Inbreeding? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Where is the... anything??
Re:Inbreeding? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Inbreeding? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people view such questions as shocking, revolting, taboo. We have collectively decided that such questions simply have no place in our lives. We do not need any explanations or justifications: the idea that all these groups have a fundamental and irrevocable right to exist is taken as axiomatic. It's one of the foundations of our modern western civilisation, period, and there is simply no further room for debate.
The question of whether men should be "allowed" to exist is the same question, asked in a different way. Therefore the answer, to people in our society, will be the same: of course men must be allowed to exist. No justification will be required.
(Not to invoke Godwin or anything, but there's a reason some people refer to extremist feminists as "feminazis". Their views are unlikely to become mainstream any time soon.)
Re:I don't get this type of research (Score:3, Insightful)
It will also allow infertile persons to have genetic children (like the planet needs more humans).
If we're going to obsolete men, let's start with the most overtly misogynistic, please. Imagine the freedom for women when they don't have to hide their bodies because most the local men are incapable of (or simply disinterested in) controlling themselves and can make their own life decisions without having to defer to some thug.
There have been several SF stories that covered this subject. Most presented an optimistic future with no men. There would certainly be no more unplanned pregnancies. Anyone who's heard about the major women's street fight in LA a couple of months back knows better, though. Without men to do most of the dying, women can be just as ruthless and brutal. I suspect being sodomized with a stick is no more pleasant that being raped by a man, although, at least, there's no risk of pregnancy.
Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet (Score:2, Insightful)
i personally think sexual preference is NOT hardwired though it does stem from prepubescent experiences. your just confusing 2 issues here.
I don't think enough emphasis is put on the fact this method produces birth defects. I find it INCREDIBLY selfish that anyone would risk their babies health just so that a man isn't involved in anyway. but that's just the kind of nonsense i've come to expect from certain man hating rug munching factions.
Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too bad.... (Score:5, Insightful)
But hey it's alright to be sexist; you're female.
Men will win in the end (sort of) (Score:5, Insightful)
If womens "stupid useless macho" partner preference is left unchecked by a mitigating male preference, everybody in the future will pretty much be a man with different sexual organs.
Re:More seriously... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet (Score:3, Insightful)
Homophobia stems from the fear by those who have made this "choice" that they might be missing out. Those insecure, closeted bisexuals need constant reassurance that their "choice" was, and is, the right one. It is an offense to them that others appear to make a "choice" opposite theirs regardless of the fact that homosexuals rarely have such choice at all. Pure heterosexuals have no such insecurities because they have made no choice for which they may feel threatened.
Take religious bigotry out of the equation and a little education would solve this social problem in a generation, but then who would we have to hate?
Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet (Score:5, Insightful)
I take it you haven't fathered any offspring. That "want" you're referring to is at its height during the brief courtship phase. Past that, it's replaced with something very different.
Here's how it works. The girl gets pregnant and your "companionship" privileges are revoked with occasional but increasingly rare exceptions using rules that only a woman could understand.
The child is born. Companionship has been replaced by sharing of duties. A year or two passes, and the privileges return occasionally, but only if you've met your workload. That continues for several years (in an ideal environment) until lust and love are relegated to "remember when?" memories. The bond between the mother and child is strong and unbreakable. The bond between the two of you is weak. You're now living the life of someone who's entered into a series of complex, interwined legal and financial agreements. Satisfy all those agreements and you may reach the 6-7 year mark. Fail, or complain about the loss of companionship, you'll discover what misery really means.
If you've come this far, and you're unhappy, then it's hookers and blackjack for you (she's busy and has "her" kids to think about). On the other hand, if she's unhappy, she will consider you as unimportant, and leave. The legal and financial agreements stay, so she gets the kids and house, and you get the bills. The world will be supportive of her decision, and you end up like a stray dog wandering the streets.
Let's all be friends, instead.
Only if you were friends to begins with. Good friends are sufficiently motivated to work things out. But then, ask yourself often people marry their friends?
Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet (Score:1, Insightful)
The rest of that statement is stereotypical. There is no proof, or consensus, among modern psychs that men are inately better at science and women better in social bonds, etc. Most of these attributes are environmentally influeced, not innate. Thus, with the absence of men in a culture, there would be women, who when exhibiting strong sense of scientific knowledge at a young age, would then be strongly encouraged just as men are today.
With all of that said, unless this future female only society all became homosexual as well, they would need men. We heterosexual women, in general, albeit enjoying relations other than the traditional, still appreciate and desire the type of activity that only a man can give us, if you can read between the lines. (This is
Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet (Score:1, Insightful)
Invoking farmers doesn't exactly help the argument. The farmers are *expecting* lots of problems and only keep the successes. Human society doesn't accept that. It's the same concept as wildlife around Chernobyl; the wildlife looks fine because the mutants died off; the humans consider an identical error rate in the human population horrifying.
Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet (Score:3, Insightful)
Women have an extremely strong "nesting" instinct when it comes to dealing kids... that is, an incredibly powerful instinct to do everything they can for the kid. That seems like common sense to do, and guys (at least, the non-stupid ones) know what to do, but it is a learned thing, while for women, it is almost by instinct. The ultimate way to see it, is about 24 to 72 hours before a pregnant woman has the baby. No matter how much they are warned or know about it, they can't help it: they'll have an incredible urge to get everything ready for the baby (In the "worse" cases it gets a bit comical... they'll want to paint the house, clean up things tha are already clean, and all around flip everything upside down).
It is usually refered to as simply "the nesting instinct", and because of that, an average woman is much, MUCH better than a guy at doing it, since they have a biological drive to it that dwarves even a teenage male's sex drive.
Re:Biblical Rewrite? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More seriously... (Score:1, Insightful)
2. Why are individual humans suddenly responsible for carrying out a grand eugenic plan? I can't think of any other couples on earth that are consciously trying to program their baby though sex to "strengthen" the next generation, I can't see why homosexuals should have some special responsibility.
Re:More seriously... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet (Score:0, Insightful)
1: Get a calender, ask her when her period is, get oriented with her signs/habits.
2: When it starts, plan 1 day ahead what you're doing.
3: Say she comes home from work(in a good mood; ask her how her day went and if you can turn it around try). First thing she is presented with is a hug+kiss, and a hot cup of European sipping chocolate made extra thick with half n' half and some mint cookies to go with it; you hide the makings of this stuff and don't tell her where you get it, ever.
4: As she mows those down, surprise her with a bubble bath complete with Epson salts, nice music, and even make it candle-lit with aromatic candles if you like.
5: She will spend an hour or more in the bath relaxing. If she wants, give her a nice back rub while she's in there to help her relax.
6: While she is in the bath relaxing, you make/acquire dinner. It must be hot, it must be somewhat fancy, it must include a little alcohol (a good wine she likes is a good way to go). Chicken with fried rice and red wine or even home-made fettucinni alfreado with feta cheese with a little beer. Become acquainted with her tastes.
7: She comes out of the bath, gets dressed (or she may come out right then and there and say fuckme, if she does, tell her you have dinner waiting), then she will find delicious dinner sitting there. Make enough she can have some tomorrow.
8: Eat, then watch a good movie; have a comedy and a love-movie ready, she will choose. Cuddle while you watch.
9: The most important part of this: no nookie. Do not fuck her, just fall asleep in her arms.
What will happen is she will wake up the next morning feeling absolutely loved and euphoric. You send her off to work; for the rest of her day she will think of you and only you. The next night is more of the same; this time you take her out on the town. Third night of the period or if it's a weekend, you go for a long drive in the early morning to someplace neither of you have been and watch the sun rise over hot cocoa.
What will occur is for about 3 weeks she will not only fuck your brains out all the time but she will feel so fantastic she'll spring dinner on you and do the same to you for a good long while.
A little bit of consideration goes a long long way.
Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Abortion as well (Score:3, Insightful)
In reality the biological burden of gestating a child and the financial burden in raising a child are both squarely on the woman's shoulders. So IMHO the woman should get the first and only say about whether or not she is ready for it.
Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, we want financial security - name me just one person in this world, of either sex, who doesn't. Yes, most (but not all) of us want to raise families. Yes, we want you to share the workload of raising the kids - it's a damned hard job, as I'm sure you are aware, on top of whatever other 'duties' the woman of the house takes on (e.g. the stereotypical cook/clean/sew routine).
Yes, the mother-child bond is strong - damned strong - but the bond between the two partners is only as weak as the weakest member of that partnership. Period.
The simple fact is, we're not all the way you've described, and if you've been "lucky" enough to find only that subset of women that are, then you are surely looking in the wrong place(s), and/or you just don't know jack shit about women.
Re:More seriously... (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all, human evolution and the state you are in right now was only possible due to the mechanisms of reproduction that you apparently don't see any value in. If the world was entirely gay, we would be wiped out in one single life cycle. Homosexuality is evolutionary suicide, and it doesn't matter whether you like that or not. Gay people are inherently able but not willing to reproduce naturally because their inherent sexual attraction(a major factor in reproduction) is to members of their own gender, meaning they would have to go against their feelings and reproduce 1984 style if they "wanted children". It is a sick idea. I would not want a gay person to have to do that, and that is why I think it is very unfortunate to be attracted sexually to your own gender. I say this even though I strongly defend gay rights and readily respect anyone regardless of what they hump, so if you take offense at that then that is your own damn problem.
While strengthening the gene pool (the GP argument)may not be paramount, and your choice of how to reproduce may not be anybody else's business, it is probably not wise to jump on completely revolutionary methods like these without understanding the consequences they may have on the offspring. Anything that deviates from the normal in highly evolved species like ourselves tends to be very destructive.
And since I'm throwing political correctness out the window, allow me to add that the male phallus was not evolved to be inserted into the digestive tract, and that females using hand made tools that mimic male organs to have sex is pretty funny, and that things CAN be both natural (i.e occuring in nature) but abnormal (i.e non-ideal and even destructive from a biological viewpoint) at the same time.
Re:Of course men not obsolete just yet (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:More seriously... (Score:2, Insightful)
It is only unfortunate if you want to have children with someone you are attracted to. Not everyone does - including straight and bisexual people. Do not confuse the species with individuals - of course some people need to be breeding, but personally I have no plans of having children.
allow me to add that the male phallus was not evolved to be inserted into the digestive tract
You sound like an IDer. Evolution is not directed in any sense like this. Or even if we accept your argument - it also wasn't evolved to come into a condom, your girlfriend's mouth, or your kleenex tissues. Not to mention that some straight couples practice anal sex, whilst some gay people don't. So why do you make this point?
that females using hand made tools that mimic male organs to have sex is pretty funny
Assuming we have got past the 14 year old male stage where such things are funny, may I ask why?
and that things CAN be both natural (i.e occuring in nature) but abnormal (i.e non-ideal and even destructive from a biological viewpoint) at the same time.
Perhaps, but that doesn't apply to any of the sexual acts you've described.
Fundy, go away. (Score:3, Insightful)
Gay people are perfectly capable of having children and often do. Go to any major american city's gay pride parade and you'll see a large troupe of gay and lesbian parents marching with their children. We're just less likely to do so, because of a number of reasons prominently including worry that heterosexuals will try to take our children away from us, and the fact that since heterosexuals don't let us marry, it's more financially and legally difficult for us to have children.
Furthermore, the whole "if the world was entirely gay" BS is a strawman argument; it hasn't happened, it isn't going to happen, grow up.That's not what evolutionary biologists have to say about it. What seems to be the case is that having gay children benefits other children in the extended family because as they become adults the gay people would likely be interested in being an additional caretaker and provider for the heterosexuals in the family, thus improving their chance to survive to reproduce.
We gay people are here, we're not going to tolerate repression any more, and you have no choice but to live with the fact. So start dealing with it.