Consider an all-female world

pecksniff

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jun 4, 2021
Posts
22,077
I recall an episode of Sliders: The Sliders land on an Earth where a discriminating plague has killed off almost all of the men. The few survivors are kept incarcerated for breeding purposes, and there is an international competition to secure male breeding stock. (So any free man is liable to be hunted -- by foreign governments as well as his own.)

But otherwise, things continue just as they did before the plague, only now women have to do all the jobs. There is nothing to suggest that poses any problem. Civilization survives.

That is a realistic picture -- it is exactly how things would go under those circumstances. Of course no men are available to "protect" the women -- but neither are any men available to threaten them, so that's a wash.
 
Don't need to nor want to. It would be an amazing world cus I wouldn't have to put up with this crap anymore.
 
So far as I can recall, the episode never does address whether half the babies born after the plague are male.
 
It's pure fantasy, like your economic beliefs.

It's an SF television show, of course it's fantasy -- but good for a thought experiment.

And it is no fantasy, it is a proven fact, to think things go better under social democracy than the kind of capitalism we have here and now.
 
I always loved Wes Anderson’s ‘The Amazon Women of Sappho’s Island.’
 
I always loved Wes Anderson’s ‘The Amazon Women of Sappho’s Island.’

I always figured that even on Themiscyra, with no men to attract, women would still wear jewelry and cosmetics -- and not to attract women, but just because they like them. There are psychological differences between the sexes -- just not any very important ones.
 
Anyone who thinks that a world of women would not turn toxic in a fraction of a second hasn't thought it through.
 
I remember that episode, it was a good show while it was on.

The professor in that episode explained how it was not a feasible way of repopulating the world. It may happen like that, but that doesn't mean it would work out in the long run.



....
 
100% women are soon extinct. In a 99% women world, swallowing and cumshots aren't done. It's all creampie or in vitro, depending on what's left of medical technology.
 
Wait... never? Like, not even on your birthday? That's lame.

Well, presumably, only a few lucky lottery winners, or women with political connections, would ever get physical access to men -- the rest would have to get by with donated sperm samples for impregnation.
 
Well, presumably, only a few lucky lottery winners, or women with political connections, would ever get physical access to men -- the rest would have to get by with donated sperm samples for impregnation.
Laaaame...

But, you know, maybe there would be a surge in fetish porn for that kind of thing. Like, the audacity of wasting it, of having it splashed all over your body, or swallowing it. It would be decadent.
 
Laaaame...

But, you know, maybe there would be a surge in fetish porn for that kind of thing. Like, the audacity of wasting it, of having it splashed all over your body, or swallowing it. It would be decadent.

Certainly. There would also be a surge in romance novels (not new romance films or TV shows -- no male actors available) in pre-plague settings. Deprived of men, women would idealize them ridiculously, and imagine the typical romance-novel superstud represented what was once the average.
 
Certainly. There would also be a surge in romance novels (not new romance films or TV shows -- no male actors available) in pre-plague settings. Deprived of men, women would idealize them ridiculously, and imagine the typical romance-novel superstud represented what was once the average.
I'm guessing that women wouldn't be able to just go without sex of any kind. I'd think there'd be a new crop of butch lesbians to fill that need for masculinity.

Still, this whole idea depresses me. The world would smell better, but the tradeoff is too much.
 
Still, this whole idea depresses me. The world would smell better, but the tradeoff is too much.

The point is not that women should want such a world or would be better off in it. (Some extremely radical feminists, I suppose, might argue exactly that, but never mind them.) The point, which nobody has contradicted, is this:

That is a realistic picture -- it is exactly how things would go under those circumstances.

IOW, women do not need men to run civilization or an industrial economy. They could do it on their own. They could run the businesses, work the factories, till the fields, construct the buildings, run the governments, run the universities, conduct scientific and technical research, create art and culture, without men. Apart from sex and companionship and reproduction, women really only need men for war -- and they only need men for war because other countries have men.
 
Last edited:
BTW, there is nothing in that episode to indicate whether the now-all-female governments are to the right or left of the pre-plague governments.

The Suffragettes predicted enfranchising women would lead to a more compassionate, humanitarian society. Didn't happen. Thing is, most women, most of the time, vote the same way as their husbands and brothers. Voting behavior is determined by several factors and gender is only one of them -- others are social class, religious background, racial/ethnic background, regional political culture -- things women generally share with their men. The only time women can be relied on to vote as a bloc is when the interests of women as such are at stake -- and even then, women are not all of one mind.
 
Back
Top