Under the skin of OnlyFans

Re:Under the skin of OnlyFans by bongoman37 on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @08:50AM (#27893089)

Thee wouldn't be a demise, it would just be a different kind of society. Males are expendable for most of society, in earlier centuries, they would die from warfare, diseases, working in high risk professions and so on. The current society we are in where we expect or desire pair bonding for life with an exclusive mate is rather new and unstable. Lost of women would be quite fine with a harem like system where they share a high quality mate with other women and now that women earn on par with men they are not limited by the male's resources being shared between children by other women.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Under the skin of OnlyFans by aqsalose on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @09:28AM (#27893420)

>it would just be a different kind of society

We are allowed to rank them by our preferences.

I do not wish males to be treated more expendable than necessary. I wish they would live fulfilling life.

Catholic church was around in Europe as a force since early Middle ages. Wouldn't call it new, unless you have sources to contrary.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Under the skin of OnlyFans by lm28469 on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @09:48AM (#27893651)

> Thee wouldn't be a demise, it would just be a different kind of society.

You can argue that about literally anything. Everything is a matter of "a different society" once it's been accepted as the new default

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Under the skin of OnlyFans by MrBuddyCasino on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @09:35AM (#27893502)

> Thee wouldn't be a demise, it would just be a different kind of society.

You mean the kind in which we live right now, and where birth rates are well below replacement values?

> The current society we are in where we expect or desire pair bonding for life with an exclusive mate is rather new and unstable.

This is wrong. Stable pair bonds are a feature of nearly all advanced societies. The reasons are game theoretic.

[ Parent | on HN ]