Can we breed out any and all women incapable of enjoying least of all orgasming from penetration alone out of the gene pool?
>>17005419https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQr9KtVRhRMhttps://www.technotheoria.org/p/embryo-selection-in-2025
>>17005425So it is possible or...?
>>17005427If it's heritable, then yes.Breeder's equation = R = h^2S"For example, imagine that a plant breeder is involved in a selective breeding project with the aim of increasing the number of kernels per ear of corn. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the average ear of corn in the parent generation has 100 kernels. Let us also assume that the selected parents produce corn with an average of 120 kernels per ear. If h2 equals 0.5, then the next generation will produce corn with an average of 0.5(120−100) = 10 additional kernels per ear. Therefore, the total number of kernels per ear of corn will equal, on average, 110."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability#Response_to_selection
>>17005429Isn't it heritable whether or not a woman will be able to come from penetration alone then? Do you or anyone know?
>>17005430>Isn't it heritable whether or not a woman will be able to come from penetration alone then? Do you or anyone know?You'd need to do a kinship-study or GWAS to find out. Most traits tend to be between 0 and 1 heritable but never 0 or 1 heritable. The question is whether it's practical to select for a trait. For example, cancer is about .2 heritable, which means that if the parent generation is 5 standard deviations above the mean (99.9999879517th percentile), you only get 1 standard deviation (84th percentile) extra for the offspring.
>>17005434Let's find out then. Hopefully it is heritable so we can either breed more of it in or breed more of it out. Homosexuality too.
You know the clitoris is homogenous to the tip of the penis, right? If you selected for vaginal orgasms against clitoral ones you'd have a generation of incredibly frustrated males who get off from anal more easily than insertive penetration.
>>17005442Really? I'm a virgin so I don't actually know a whole lot about sex, not from personal experience anyways. This is all just based on what I hear on the internet. But the idea that our members aren't enough to satisfy women is existentially horrifying to me. Even though I heard some people say that women still enjoy penetration and PIV even if most can't orgasm from it alone with one pointing out that that's why dildos exist (which I sort of figured already before they told me. that why would dildos exist if women don't feel anything down there I mean) but still.
>>17005446Luckily your member isn't required for most women. You can actually turn most women into a liquid state using just your hands and tongue.
>>17005448Yeah that's existentially horrifying. You want to know who else has hands and tongues? Other women. I want a woman to need a man sexually like a man needs a woman sexually. And why we need to stop tolerating this crap.
>>17005450>Yeah that's existentially horrifying.Sorry what ... I am a biologist. What is the issue again? ^^
>>17005454Existential horror means horror at things beyond your control that are facts of reality and existence because you're not God and therefore can't change or fix them, is it not? So that's why this is existentially horrifying to me as a straight guy because I do care about female pleasure during sex especially since I think they can and should feel way more pleasure during it than men can but what's the point of a man if they don't need our members to do that? I don't want to feel unneeded as a guy. But like I said I heard that while most women might not be able to orgasm from penetration that doesn't mean they can't or don't enjoy it still physically.
>>17005456By that logic all guys are gays because a different guy can get them off. While I'll grant from observation that most women are probably somewhere on the lesbo spectrum, it doesn't follow from your logic.
>>17005459Yeah we should breed homosexuality out of the gene pool too. Don't know why we need that either. What exactly is society and humanity by extension going to lose if there were no more homosexuals? As in what is something only gay people can do, not straights?
>>17005465Does natural homosexuality even exist – at least as broadly as depicted? Since its heritability from twin studies is nowhere near 1, it seems that most cases of homosexuality aren't predetermined based on genetic or other pre-birth factors. Maybe you can get rid of any genes making homosexuality likelier, though perhaps it can't be made impossible. Those genes might have important double functions though.
>>17005442>against clitoral onesThis isn’t necessary (you can select for one trait without selecting against another because they aren't necessarily dichotomous), but you just felt the need to say that your penis is totally a clitoris, right xister?
>>17005419What?
>>17005465Are you suggesting forced sterilization? People have the right to their own bodies since they own them, not you or the state.If people want to voluntarily breed for better genes, then let them. But you shouldn't force them.
>>17005450>want a woman to need a man sexually like a man needs a woman sexually.(You) are a porn-brained virgin who is too alienated from humanity to understand sex.
>>17005468I have no idea. I did hear about the twin studies regarding homosexuality though.
>>17005470You're saying that selecting for vaginal orgasms in the human population doesn't have to make it where it ends up reducing penile sensitivity as well like this person was suggesting?
>>17005481What do you mean? Men want women for exclusively female physically (like vaginas, butts and breasts) for sex. I'd like women to want men for much the same things but for male anatomy like penises.
>>17005468Law of distributions would make gay people naturally. Woman internally relating to a life function would make them cold to an orgasim.
>>17005488What?
>>17005483Yes, it was a false dichotomy. Saying that selecting for (or against) the ability to vaginally orgasm selects against (or for) the ability to clitorally orgasm.
>>17005491It's just nonsense (perhaps from a bot). Pay it no mind.
>>17005495I think they were saying that since the clitorus and penis are so related (is that true? I heard of something like that before and that gives me existential dread as well) that if you made it where you bred out women who clitorally orgasm adn breed exclusively for those who vaginally do so that men born of those women would have less penile sensitivity somehow. Ironically turning the men more gay.
>>17005498What is?
>>17005500There's no reason that making women more able to orgasm from the vagina (which is actually mostly a function of clitoral stimulation, anyway) would definitely lead to them being less able to orgasm or experience pleasure from the clitoris so their argument doesn't follow any logic.>>17005504>What is?"Law of distributions" isn't an actual term, and neither are "life function" (this could mean anything) or "cold to an orgasim." Maybe "cold to an orgasim" is supposed to mean less likely to orgasm, but I'm not sure.
>>17005506"Mostly a function of clitoral stimulation"? I thought it was because of the G-spot they have in there in the vagina.
>>17005491Imagine all the males and females floating in a light on opposite sides to each other and distribution of coupling would make some centred on their own sex.
>>17005533i still don't get it.
>>17005485Have sex. Just once. You'll understand that they like dick just fine
>>17005454
>>17005562Not more than I am, huh ... ;)
