'Breeding' i.e. 'a human male ejaculating into the birth canal of a human female resulting in pregnancy' is the primary biological objective of human sexual activity. This has been determined by hundreds of millions of years of selective pressure. Through the twin miracles of mass pharmaceuticals and industrial-scale latex extraction, the good people of the 20th century completed the abstraction of sex from conception. This is only slightly absurd, since trying to have sex without making babies is an undertaking at least as old as civilisation. The true absurdity, though, is that having come to regard the possibility of intercouse resulting in pregnancy as an item of trivia rather than as the central fact of the endeavour, it has now been reterritorialised as a 'fetish'. It is considered by many that impregnation is just another of the wacky side-dishes on the platter of slightly unorthodox sex acts, less weird than bondage but more weird than cunnilingus [1]. Like all such 'fetishes', it is therefore also commoditised: a premium tier add-on, a new subscriber bonus. Moreover, we are now confidently told by Redditors and other such authorities on human sexuality that when a very rich man (maybe even the *most rich* man) has many children, it is not a biological imperative that drives him, but rather the perverted expression of a 'breeding kink'. (Isn't it surprising how allowable 'kink shaming' is when it's a cudgel to bash Bad People). Well, it may be depraved to sire over a dozen children by nearly as many women, but it is a natural sort of depravity. Like the desire to solve neighbourly disputes with fisticuffs, it is the sort of atavism that decent people are supposed to be able to reason their way out of. It's not truly repulsive, though. I reserve my true repulsion for those nihilists who believe that what is quite literally the most natural thing in the world can be best understood as a 'fetish' or 'kink', and therefore as an identity category. Collectively, procreation is our one and only vote against oblivion. For this reason only a true nihilist would consider it an abnormality or foible, interesting only for its potential as a means of self-identification or a driver of consumption. It is not a coincidence that there is such a coincidence between nihilists and capitalists, after all. [1] https://aella.substack.com/p/fetish-tabooness-and-popularity-v3
Dumb people on reddit arent worth this much thought
Nobody needs more than two children. Any more is a sign of sexual pathology.
Redditor misuses term, OP (also redditor) now convinced term is meaningless. Bravo. OP (redditor) accused of intellectualizing ick/virtue signaling and writing word salad psuedslop over a 10 second reddit post. Final diagnosis: autism (incurable)
It kind of hits the usual beats, doesn't it. I also thought there was something substantive missing but didn't want to dwell on the topic enough to write a real reply (lest I lapse into wasting my few brain cells on manic misandry). I would say that the modern "breeding fetish" is in fact a separate thing in and of itself and not an unnatural evolution out of, or descendant from, some theoretical harmonious natural state of sexuality. It can only exist in a society with very little contact between the sexes and highly rigid physical environments. You think your average hunter-gatherer or villager gets unbearably horny when he sees a pregnant woman? No, they are probably such a mundane and regular sighting that they lose their fetishistic value. It's why you can't go without a bra in a lot of countries (including shithole US, which is where much of this particular kind of cancer germinates) - men lose their absolute fucking minds. Makes you a tiny bit jealous of said villagers who can just live their lives with the honeys hangin. I digress. These men actively seek out explicit visual media centering on these pregnant bodies because of a desire to play out social domination fantasies with these women specifically. These girls, their peers, people they live with or see in their peripheral circle. It's so much more than passive content consumption even though that is what is happening in a literal sense. That's what makes it qualitatively different.
>>1340 > It's why you can't go without a bra in a lot of countries In my opinion this has a lot more to do with puritan cultural values rather than sexuality. > men lose their absolute fucking minds. Though perhaps the reason are different nowadays. I saw the effects of porn and porn addiction in my peers first hand and it isn't pretty. >because of a desire to play out social domination fantasies with these women specifically Huh?? Where does this idea come from and what is the reasoning behind it?
Well, let us consider what is really happening with this "breeding fetish". While it was used jokingly in the OP to refer to someone that likes to fuck a lot, the term really describes a fixation on, and obsession with, pregnant women and the various kinds of physical attributes they have while pregnancy. In the classical sense of the word, "fetish" would mean to imply that these men, when they are out and about during the day, derive an uncontrollable thrill from finding and seeking out pregnant women in public to view, and eventually I guess to impregnate. But what an antiquated framing of what is really going on in the modern day - an obsessive consumption and stockpiling of digital media. It's the thing unto itself, the process, the habit. The comfort. Gooncaves hit it big among the semi-normie redscarepod crowd because it was many womens' first up-close introduction into how many modern actually interact with these massive amounts of very specific digital media. This is not even getting into the abject degeneracy that is pregnancy fetishes crossed with internet art and subcultures. So, is it really about the pregnant women anymore and their pregnant bodies and day-to-day goings on of childrearing and men's participation as such? Maybe the beginning 10% of it is. The equivalent of our already not-really-accurate pre-modern human, who might have been some chap who just rubs it out behind the bushes once in a while or has a favorite goat or slave or whatever. But the other 90%? That is something else. The mind has already wandered astray and turned back on some of its higher functions. Yes, their bodies might be sexier to the average male, but a higher cup size or large belly can only take you so far. So much of pregnancy is mundane when you live it day in and day out. No, the obsession is over the fact of womens submission into the natural order. They have become pregnant because they were supposed to, and the viewer is there to watch over this and approve of it. Their bodies are distended and suffer because it's a "natural" way to unleash pain onto women, that object that so frustrates yet entices them. It's plain ol heterosexuality taken to its logical conclusion (as the OP's post title picked up on). This is where the second wave feminists get their "porn is violence" rhetoric from by the way, which since you didn't automatically counter it with "shut up with your feminism" I assume you're not intimately familiar with.
>the term really describes a fixation on ... pregnant women and ... physical attributes they have while pregnancy. >and eventually I guess to impregnate I believe you are conflating a breeding fetish (to inseminate) with a pregnancy fetish. I'm quite sure there is a certain kind of person who would be turned on by the former yet disgusted by the latter, and I don't think one necessarily leads to the other. >it was many womens' first up-close introduction into how many modern actually interact with these massive amounts of very specific digital media. If I am correct in my assumption that you meant to write modern men instead of just modern, I can assure you that there is an increasing amount of women gooners and the loneliness epidemic is not a gendered issue. Though I do admit porn hits the male brain extra hard and men are far more likely to be extreme and reckless in their consumption. I think women are probably more likely to watch Netflix all day, for whatever reason. > the obsession is over the fact of womens submission into the natural order >They have become pregnant because they were supposed to If you were instead claiming that a pregnancy fetish dehumanizes and objectifies women by ignoring the human aspect while focusing on the transient state of their bodies I would agree. The claim that men with such a fetish are getting off specifically on the subjugation and suffering of women seems to me rather misanthropic and unsupported by your post. You were correct in your statement that I am not intamatley familiar with feminist rhetoric and I would assume this viewpoint emerges from a broader belief in feminist theory and concepts like marriage as a slave contract/patriarchy/etc. It would probably do me a lot of good to sit down and read some books instead of just absorbing second/third hand information. It has just come to me that you could be arguing that the men themselves are unwittingly/subconsciously getting off to the suffering in which case please let me know and I will re-evaluate. >since you didn't automatically counter it with "shut up with your feminism" I did recognize it as feminist or feminist-adjacent, but thought it wise not to mention since it's easy for misunderstandings to arise. There's a lot of feminist ideas I disagree with, but just as numerous are ones I find truth in. >the modern day - an obsessive consumption and stockpiling of digital media >the process, the habit. The comfort These are interesting points and I will post again in a few days after my brain has properly mulled them over.
You're right, I conflated the two different fetishes. I guess that makes my rant moot at least for the subject of this thread. I didn't arrive at my current views because I read feminist theory. I reached them independently from personal experience observing these men in their own environment, and later found on it had already been described decades earlier, which impressed me.