Anal Only Lifestyle Forum

Robin Hanson, an economist at George Mason University, said something interesting in a recent interview with Lex Fridman. Academics have noted that as an outcome of empowering women (educationally, financially, professionally, legally), our culture is in the process of reverting back to a relationship style that was predominant in our hunter/gatherer past: Less emphasis on monogamy and marriage, more fluid sexual relationships, and often absentee fathers.

In this view, a specific set of conditions let to the patriarchal style of relationship where the woman is treated like property and a high social cost is attached to infidelity (female especially) and children being born out of wedlock. The reasoning goes that when people adopted agriculture, suddenly you had assets (farmland, equipment) that you wanted to protect and give to your children, since retaining those assets would give them a leg up and provide for yourself in your old age. (By contrast, in a hunter/gatherer culture there are fewer if any assets to hand on.) This led to a relationship style that sharply controlled sexual access to females (if you're cuckolded then some other guy's kids inherit the family farm), and as part of achieving that, women's freedoms were sharply curtailed. All of that is being quickly unwound, first in the West but soon elsewhere.

Several indications of rapid change include: Sharply decreased rates of marriage, normalization of casual sex and FWB relationships across all elements of society, sharply increased rates of children born out of wedlock (over 40% in the US and Europe), sharply decreased rates of religious observance (which maintains the patriarchal norms), cultural acceptance of sex work and a repudiation of "slut shaming", cultural acceptance of nontraditional relationship styles (polyamory, open marriages of various kinds, trans and gay relationships), and widespread acceptance of "nonvanilla" sex like anal and oral. To more traditional elements of our society these changes are seen as evidence of a cultural breakdown, but it's more insightful to think of it as simply change: We are transitioning to a world where casual sex is common and encouraged, few children are close to their biological fathers, and most people have multiple sexual partners and never "marry" as such. Biological fathers will not be financially responsible for children, but rather government subsidies for children will make up the difference in the form of direct payments to mothers. This looks a lot like our hunter-gatherer past.

In this future I think it's likely we'll see a transition away from hormonal birth control. HBC affects the mood and health of the woman in sometimes dramatic ways, and since women don't have to "put out for their husbands" they can opt out. As a result we'll see a big shift toward more natural forms of birth control like anal sex. Women will be able to choose how many partners they want, and of what kinds, and there will be no social stigma attached to these decisions. Anal sex will be an expected part of sex (much as fellatio has become an expectation over time). If a woman is of child-bearing age, she will decide which men enter her pussy and which ones are anal- or oral-only. Men with financial means will fund trust accounts for mother/child in exchange for fatherhood rights, similar to what Elon Musk and other wealthy men do today in a more covert manner. Especially attractive women will be able to make careers out of mothering for wealthy men.

Given the pace of changes we're seeing, it will be interesting to see where we end up in another 20 years.

I don't see that happening, imminent population collapse is a far more likely outcome. Most of the first world is just barely or below replacement rate. Within a couple generations a large majority of the first world population will vanish.

It's more likely that we will reset to agrarian practices, where more children means more labor. Assets will be retained through families. It would have to take some catastrophic event that takes out everyone except the deep jungle tribes with little to no contact with the outside world to go back to hunter gatherer status.

@analcomeonly completely agree about birth control medication. Mrs Colt took it for decades and we believe it killed her libido. It wasn’t until five years ago when she started hormone replacement therapy that her libido returned… along with a strong desire for anal. I’d caution all young women to avoid birth control meds if you want a strong and healthy libido. Big pharma cannot be trusted. When they sell meds to treat the side effects of other medications, they’ve gone too far.

Interesting theory but there is one MAIN issue. 90% of men in prison and over 50% of women in prison grew up with no dad. These are the stats so there is something to this.
Anal is normal and natural but when you start talking about fatherless children, it is a different subject and obviously screws them up.

@Colt1911 Your experience with your wife is identical to ours. My wife was on hormonal birth control for many, many years starting before our marriage, and it was only after stopping that we realized how much of her low libido, and more importantly her depression, was due to the pills. There are so many good natural alternatives – all it takes is for a couple to commit to no PIV sex until they want kids.

My view is that casual sex/hookups when a person is first starting should be oral, and more experienced people and committed couples should then transition to mostly/exclusively anal. As a birth control method anal does take some care (avoiding leakage onto the vaginal opening, being careful about accidentally thrusting into PIV).

Guidance from parents, doctors, and sex educators for young women shouldn't be pills, but rather how to have a fulfilling sex life without PIV sex. In the US it's become common for parents to buy their daughters vibrators/dildos in the 12-16 age range, to let them explore safely. As a follow-on, girls in the 14-18 range should also have access to a good set of trainer anal plugs. Every young woman should be confident adopting a no-PIV lifestyle by the time she's sexually active with men.

@semi-normal The incarceration data comingle with many other factors, like race and socioeconomics, that make it hard to tease out to what extent fatherlessness is the cause of these problems. As a counterpoint, the rate of children born out of wedlock is even higher across much of Europe, and all these have lower crime rates than the US (https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/birth ... europe-us/):

• Iceland 69%

• France 62%

• Norway 58%

• Portugal 57%

• Sweden 55%

• Great Britain 48%

These numbers are sharply up over the last 40 years so it seems safe to predict the role of fathers will continue to evolve.

AnalEngineer wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 12, 2023 7:49 pm

I don't see that happening, imminent population collapse is a far more likely outcome. Most of the first world is just barely or below replacement rate. Within a couple generations a large majority of the first world population will vanish.

It's more likely that we will reset to agrarian practices, where more children means more labor. Assets will be retained through families. It would have to take some catastrophic event that takes out everyone except the deep jungle tribes with little to no contact with the outside world to go back to hunter gatherer status.

I take the "population collapse" narrative popular in the media now with a big grain of salt. I'm old enough to remember the 1970s and 1980s when everyone worried that overpopulation would doom us all. Now it's underpopulation?

Also I (more to the point, the economist I was referencing) never claimed we would become hunter-gatherers again. The claim is that we are returning to a sexual lifestyle that is more like that of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Less emphasis on marriage as a legal contract, less stigma attached to non-monogamy, more fluidity and variety in relationship styles and partners.

@analcomeonly I should have also mentioned that statins prescribed for high cholesterol can kill a males libido. Right around the time we went anal only, I took a statin for slightly elevated cholesterol. I quit weeks later because I couldn’t achieve an erection.

After I educated myself following the experience, I discovered sexual side effects associated with statins. It’s also theorized statins may be associated with Alzheimer’s because the brain actually needs cholesterol to function.

I despise the big government/pharma complex. It’s all about the money. Yes, some drugs are helpful but do your research before taking anything these days.

I still think there's something beautiful and special about romance. Falling in love, being special and getting reprocity. It's not just about sex, biology, hormones and animal instinct. Yes, our animal instinct will lead us to have sex with multiple partners, but is it all there is? Just fucking without any emotional bond to anyone? I don't know, to me this looks unspiritual and backwards. Call me old fashioned if you will. I still think there's more to the relation of a man and a woman than just the physical.

Even more so @Ozzy, I could never have sex without prior mental and emotional connection. I am 53 and had sex with 4 women in my whole life.

Everything you mention is very important to me. Sex is only satisfying with someone who ignite reactions inside me. That’s why I am in heaven with my sweetheart. She’s more then I dared to dream of. Where my fantasy ended, she adds a few steps on the way. To me she feels like a winning lotery ticket.

Backdoorlover wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 17, 2023 10:42 am

Even more so @Ozzy, I could never have sex without prior mental and emotional connection. I am 53 and had sex with 4 women in my whole life.

Everything you mention is very important to me. Sex is only satisfying with someone who ignite reactions inside me. That’s why I am in heaven with my sweetheart. She’s more then I dared to dream of. Where my fantasy ended, she adds a few steps on the way. To me she feels like a winning lotery ticket.

Marital relationship has its challenges. I think it's very much needed for both of the partners to have their own space, their own individuality. I think too much closeness is what kills love, and kills that mistery where you know you don't have that person all figured out yet. Maybe just my way of seeing things, I know I had girlfriends who complained I was distant, but at the same time they understood my need for isolation and introspection. I think I've really made some girls really fall in love with me, lol. For me, the times when I was really in love, it didn't happen. So, it's particular for each one, I still didn't have that moment when I feel like I've won the lotery ticket. I'm a 40 years old man. (though I look younger, ).