From 4chan
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2025
556 points (93.7% liked)
CosplayGirls
1388 readers
1 users here now
A community featuring SFW Cosplay Girls.
Rules
- Females Only
- Any post containing nudity /suggestive poses should be marked NSFW.
- Cosplayer name should be mentioned in the title.
- No Promotions in title.
- Follow general lemmy.world rules.
Please headover to CosplayBabes for nsfw cosplay girls.
Lara Croft by CyberKittyXO
Harley Quinn by KayPikeFashion
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean, one could be forgiven if they thought they were at a strip club. But still, groping strippers without consent is a no no as well.
Most con goers aren't legally able to enter the strip club.
Makes it all much weirder
Are they legally able to walk onto a beach?
I think this is in reference to their age... they do ID you before entering a strip club, right? I would assume so if they also sell alcohol.
Yea. But convention space is not a strip club. The most revealing thing would be beach attire. Their argument is sexist and creepy.
If you're going into a convention space to sexualize women the way you would at a strip club you're there for the wrong reason.
The comparison shouldn't even be drawn and its crazy and creepy. Children can go to a con. People with his mindset shouldn't.
Good thing a con isn't a strip club then
No more revealing than a bikini, nobody normal bats an eye at this shit at the beach or a pool
Can we take a moment and point out how weird a double standard that actually is. If you wore the exact same bikini somewhere there isn't water, you'd be fucking arrested
Not outside of religious countries.
Well I'm American so unfortunately that applies to me
Ugh, I feel ya
They might try and arrest you but it'd be hard to make any charges stick, maybe if it was on private property and you were already asked to leave and refused first, but yeah it's weird and stupid
If its the same, then why do women not care about being seen in a two piece bikini, but freak out if you see them in bra and knickers?
Undergarments tend to be a lot thinner and can be inherently more revealing due to sheerness or the way the fabric sits. Swimwear usually has an inner liner that greatly reduces the issue.
No they dont. Sexy ones do, sure. But no, they dont. They tend to do the job and be comfortable. Thats it. The real answer you are looking for is "consent".
Reads like you are telling on yourself…
People have bodies, what a shock.
The population is outright shrinking though, so this also implies the only reason the species exists is rape. Which is...concerning
I can see that interpretation, but I would point out that this person is talking about a narrow time in history and not necessarily all of human evolution or even all of human experience for that time. Further, sexual desire isn't exactly tied to reproduction - reproduction can be intentional or spontaneous. Love is an enduring human trait.
Second, I think it's more the implication that women given access to birth control and abortions only choose to have 0-3 kids on average, so we can perhaps extrapolate that many women in the past would've chosen the same but couldn't. Why? Well, no birth control and spousal rape was literally legal until the 90s. It's not that they never wanted ANY kids, it's that given choice, they have less kids on average overwhelmingly for decades across class, nationality, etc. Women are typically concerned about the pain and danger of pregnancy and child birth; having enough time for their kids; financial worries relating to birth and childrearing; and whether their kid will have a good future.
Still, I will avoid posting it again.
While I think conjugal rape and old concepts that made women feel like they had to have sex with their husband are surely for something, I feel that even if you had a society without birth control and where women were protected from conjugal rape and felt free not to have sex with their husband, you'd still have a much higher birth rate than today, simply because women like to have sex, have sexual needs, and many would willingly have sex, even when knowing that would lead to yet another pregnancy and the risk of death.
Also for labor, not denying this either.
And support in old age, I think that went into the calculations too.
? Women have long had methods of abortion via plants. I myself know of several. Further, condoms made from animal parts and nonpenetratice sex are a thing. Women have lesbian sex. Sexual pleasure and arousal isn't per se related to procreation - this is a typically Christian belief (that guilt trips people into sexual activity that produces babies) but not actually based in sexual reality.
If sexual arousal was strictly related to reproduction, then gay people would never be sexually aroused by each other as many gay couples can't procreate with each other. But yet they exist. Because sexual arousal, while driven by evolution, isn't related to reproduction unless that person has a kink for reproduction.
No, women do not have sex if they think it or pregnancy will kill them.
I suspect they are less effective or less safe than those offered by modern medicine.
I doubt the convenience or effectiveness was the same. Plus, I did say I was referrin to a society without birth control.
Yes, and I expect many women would be content with only that. But I've never had a partner who was content only or even mainly with that. They want the dick. So, I don't believe that would work well in avoidsing births for a lot of women.
Of course. But that's not a solution for the wide majority of women who are not into women.
I never said it was.
Of course not, not when it's a certainty.
Right, but we are talking about taking those in the past, not the present. So the women at the time were comparing how safe these abortifacients are versus pregnancy and childbirth and possible forced proximity to the father.
https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/admire-the-3000-year-old-condom-of-the-egyptian-pharaoh-tutankhamun-archaeologists-are-amazed
We've had condoms a long time. No, they were not as efficient.
No offense, but you probably attract and demand a certain kind of sex. Sex is extremely varied. A lot of women like dick, but I know of many women who like oral. Either way, whatever some women enjoy with sex doesn't mean they would engage in that if it risked their life and they could just be fingered or use a dildo (also a lot of ancient dildos). A lot of women are perfectly satisfied masturbating and not having a partner at all. The reason we invented modern methods is because people have been demanding its development.
And pulling out or finishing with oral after penetrative sex can be considered akin to birth control, while also not perfect, it's better than nothing especially in ancient times.
So when is this hypothetical society except in Christian nirvana sexual fantasy?
You've had sex with women in modern times with access to birth control, so lucky you, you get to have more penetrative sex. If it was going to kill her, like in ancient times, you'd probably both do other stuff if you cared about her. Or masturbate. People aren't entitled to sex.
The point is that lesbian sex is often nonpenetrative and those women in lesbian relationships report higher sexual satisfaction and more orgasms.
Back then, women would've known someone (friend, cousin, sister, aunt) who died in childbirth and would have taken it seriously as a risk. Just like we take driving seriously today because it carries a risk of harm, so we wear seatbelts and have airbags. We decided these were a good idea due to the history of carriages and cars, and gave up some freedom and comfort so we could increase health outcomes. Like with modern birth control.
Eg, 20th century postcard advocating for birth control and freedom of choice: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Victorian_Postcard_-_woman_hitting_stork_with_parasol.jpg
I... agree with you. I don't know how to say it, but to me all your arguments bring support. But not in absolute terms.
What I mean is that I recognized from the start that it would have an effect. But I can't imagine penetrative sex would be entirely gone. And you referred to pull out, or finishing with non-penetrative sex. That also carries risk of pregnancy. Even pre-sejaculate can lead to pregnancy.
Cars are actually a great example of people not making the wisest choices. In cities, we have the option of building denser, building infrastructure for bikes, and having really convenient and frequent public transit for safer, greener, and healthier cities. Instead, by and large, people prefer sparser cities, with plenty of space to park their car, and streets for their car, not for bikes. They choose the perceived confort and convenience of cars over the possibility of avoiding killing pedestrians, which happens all the time, polluting people around with heavy metals, polluting the atmosphere with green house gas, and causing themselves and their family to have more chance of getting heart problems and other health problems from being inactive.
Women can know of other women dying from childbirth, but think it can't possibly happen to them. Or let themselves be carried by passion. Or think that if their partner pull early, nothing will happen. Or they will be better at it, this time, than before when they got pregnant. Or invite their partner to cum over their body, thinking it won't land on their vulva, or it's no big deal if it happens. Or a ton of other justifications / beliefs leading to not avoiding risks completely.
I'm too sleepy to find the correct words now to continue on this train of thought, but I think you get what I mean. My position is that fear of maternal death would have an effect in such a society, but not enough to completely reduce the number of children down to only those who were fully wanted and planned for. But your arguments did make me reconsider the rate of that effect.
There's another reason that you don't seem to be accounting for: 50% of children born before the 20th century died before adulthood. Childhood survival rates have skyrocketed due to modern medicine, to the point where most children learn about death because of pets or old people, not their siblings dying young or mother dying in childbirth.
To be clear: I agree with the thrust of your argument and actually am a big fan of yours. I still have that epic comment about the US election you wrote 11 months ago saved. Just wanted to add another angle to the discussion
The second half of that is literally my point. Spousal rape was normal for most of modern human history, and the one time it isn't we drop below replacement rate. Now we don't have the controls to measure how much birth control played into that on its own, but it's at least possible that the human race relied on spousal rape to perpetuate itself
Spousal rape still happens, most rape happens without consequence. It's that women have access to birth control that allows them to control how many kids they have.
The reason replacement level is down is because birth control (eg levongestrol) was invented and became in use in the 70s, with global advances in human rights and better financial equity in many places. Since then, the average person has gotten poorer and poorer, it's harder to afford a home, etc, because income inequality has increased and ownership has been stolen from us transaction by transaction.
Look again at my reasons listed for why women do and don't choose to have kids. One of them is financial reasons.
The populations are evening out, not disappearing. But if the path to avoid extinction is rape, then I hope the next sapiens take better care of the Earth than us