How would the world be different if the only way for a male to orgasm was through vaginal intercourse only...

How would the world be different if the only way for a male to orgasm was through vaginal intercourse only? Nothing else would work, just vaginal and only with humans.

First thing that comes to mind, I don't think society would have moved towards balance or female equality, it would have been fully Patriarchal.

If while female orgsam would follow the same rules, nothing would change that much..except no pr0n

This is only for males, females would stay the same as they are today

Sexist much?

It is a question, it has nothing to do with ideology. More of a thought, I believe that society is built around some pretty flimsy reasons and a simple change of how males orgasm could completely change it.

How would the world be different if the only way for a female to orgasm was through vaginal intercourse only? Nothing else would work, just vaginal and only with men their own race.

Rape lots of rape

I think the opposite.

Women would be in total control of males boii

This doesn't apply to females, they can still broomstick their twats all they want.

That's what I thought.

So you can ask a question but I can't?

Sex and sex education would be much less important and devalued in society, but those taught in the magic art of orgasm would become prolific rapists.

How do you figure that? Males would have developed a society bereft of any chance of females getting power.

Even more rappers rapping about bullshit to appear wealthy. 60% of all humanity work as divorce lawyers.

>only with humans.
would suck, we need robo waifus already. fuck being dependant on whores who'll give you diseases.
fucking gay earth
i fucking hate this life

Your version doesn't make any sense though since the female orgasm is a myth.

how much different would the world be in med could only cum once?

Any man that came would be relegated out to the fields to farm sweet potatoes but those who had not nutted would be paraded around in great parties to be bid on by wealthy women.

>Males would have developed a society bereft of any chance of females getting power.
why would that happen?
women currently are the limiting factor to male sexuality, which has led to an almost purely female focus in arts and society. if you take away free orgasms from men, that situation would be even more extreme.

You are not looking at this big picture, imagine going through puberty, raging hormones, and you can't find relief. Imagine that from the dawn of time.

Women would not be seen as owning themselves since we would have 1,000's of years of men taking it away from them and it being ingrained in us.

i see. a rape-by-default theory. vaild.

Take a look at some of the older civilizations. Ancient Rome or Greece, the foundation of life as we know it. Back then, to even participate in any political role you had to be a man. Laws formed this way and carried through the centuries. Only since recent times, have women seen a fraction of the opportunity a man may have by default.

So, I believe the world would have formed more to the side of women being an important necessity which would objectify them more so.

sex is trivial and unimportant, just masturbate if you really need that sense of relief

Well not 'by default' really but I think that it would create a very different society. Gay sex, blow jobs, masturbating, etc. all do nothing for you. Only if you have vaginal sex.

There would be no desire for porn as it would drive the feeling to want to have sex. It *could* be possible that some groups would go the Vulcan route and try to control themselves but mostly females would not get an equal chance in fear that they would control access.

You-can't-masturbate-in-this-theory

Seriously, how?

Go back further to tribes, do you think that the physically weaker females would keep the same or greater power in society if this were true?

No way they would have been held in higher esteem in Greece, "Women are for babies, men are for pleasure.", they would have just said, "Women are for babies and pleasure."

Well I realized I only posted a fragment of my thought but pretty much I feel the world wouldnt be that different. Women have been second to men in the real world, with jacking. Women would be even more like slaves if they were the only way to orgasm. I mean they would be even more objectified in a negative way

I think your conclusion is the opposite of what would happen.

If men could only achieve orgasm through women, then it would further empower women.

However, because it's women who want families and children, if you made it so men couldn't orgasm via sex, then women would be crawling at men begging for sex so they could have a family.

If you take away the drive of our psyche that motivates us to act towards and respond to women with sex as the goal, they literally would have nothing to contribute to the relationship.

Yeah agreed, not sure on the severity but it would not be a good thing for sure.

I don't get how any of you think this would empower women, they are physically weaker and they are the only way to orgasm under this thought. Do this from the beginning and fast forward to today and best case scenario is that they are treated like Saudi chicks.

>hypothetical scenario is sexist
wew lad

Well I suppose it depends at what point in time you implement this. If you say we evolved this way, then sure, it would be patriarchal. But I didn't see the point to your premise because that's akin to "What if purple was the shortest wavelength?" Then yeah... the sky would be purple. But it doesn't change anything because that's a fictional supposition.

Your scenario has more interesting implications if this started happening in recent history or now, after social rights of women has progressed to this point because you'd have to consider the current power structure and cultural climate and how things would shift.

That's a far more compelling thought experiment than "What if we evolved with tails?" If your premise is just to overwrite history with a different biological feature, then there's no back and forth to be had. Your premise would boil down to "Would our empathy ever overcome our evolved perceptions of treating women like pleasure objects?" To which the answer is either: No, women would have a shitty life. Or yes, our evolved respect for women would empower them above us because they'd have control over a commodity.

Sure you can, make your own thread and ask your own question. You're obviously not trying to answer a question with a question since you just said you want to ask a question. You can. Somewhere else. Or here, and get no answer. But yo will get called a fucking retard

SJW much? Fag off.

True enough however you could explore both thoughts.

If it were recent, say in the 60's right at the end of 50's 'traditionalism' but before 'free love', then it could mean women would be seen as less equals to men overall.

Part of this would be women not being able to address being in the workplace since they would get derailed by fighting off sexual advances.

All of the tech advances which thrived due to porn would not have the impact that they did. Last thing you would want is an untreatable boner. 50% of the GDP would go towards making a vagina in a beaker.

Entertainment would not be sexual in nature so would women be in movies at all, or, in any meaningful way? Lots of Ben Hur, not so much My Best Friend's Wedding.

Without gays pushing for equality, since there would be little to no reason to be gay even if you felt that way, many of the other fringe groups would never gain a voice.

Balck people would be worse and better off. Worse since the women could be seen as a captured audience for sex but maybe better in some way? Not sure what but there has to be some driving factor which would be a benefit. Not jsut Blacks, all other minorities too.

There would be a ton of Lesbians and TONS of Lesbian only porn.