[Samseau]

This was posted at Heartiste.

Quote:

A technique to remove pieces of ovary, store it for decades and then replace it with delicate surgery could effectively put a woman's menopause 'on ice', doctors said.

A conference heard how more than 20 babies have been born worldwide to patients who either had their own ovarian tissue removed before treatment that would have left them infertile, and replaced afterwards, or twins where one donated tissue to the other.

My first thoughts:


The last consequences of living a slut lifestyle are finally going to be removed by science.

First came reliable condoms, then reliable birth control, then abortion on demand, and now women can have babies at almost any point in their life.

Roissy argues women will still become ugly as they age, which lowers their chances of marriage. But that won't stop hordes of spinsters in their later 30's to 50's from just raising a child as a single mom. There's no cause for alarm with a "demographic crisis".


Seriously. Who cares if women whore it up now? Women don't need to marry young, and neither do men.

All we need is some male birth control, and we'll be officially living in our Brave New Utopia.

[WestCoast]

Hmm my first thought here is how fucked up would the kids be?

No father figure is already bad. Now try no father figure at all in sight, at least divorced parents there is a glimmer of hope (if that) where the dad can help the kid learn. In that situation there is 0 hope.

So being raised by an angry woman who has total influence over the child's thoughts, great?

[dragnet]

Two things:

1) Womens' looks will still fade as they get older.

2) The cost for this procedure will make it prohibitive for all but the most wealthy women. Who are the only real beneficiaries of feminism anyways.

Unless coverage for this becomes mandatory under Obamacare---then all bets are off.

[Duke Castile]

Which means it's easier for guys to get roped into paying child support and subsidizing these women. Scary.

[Excelsior]

(07-09-2012 01:36 PM)dragnet Wrote:  

Two things:

1) Womens' looks will still fade as they get older.

2) The cost for this procedure will make it prohibitive for all but the most wealthy women. Who are the only real beneficiaries of feminism anyways.

Unless coverage for this becomes mandatory under Obamacare---then all bets are off.

Bingo. In addition:

1. Many women are not going to want to keep having periods into their 60's and 70's.

2. Many women are not going to be capable of sustaining a pregnancy at 55-60 and bouncing back properly. Nature intended us to be procreating at around half that age-there is only so much we can do to thwart our own biology. Men have a much less daunting and draining task in procreation than women-feminists excited about "evening the playing field" are going to run into this wall head first.

Bottomline: These affluent, "career" women (the kinds that, as dragnet mentions, are the primary beneficiaries of modern feminism) are desperate to try and bend the rules of nature to their favor, both to fuel their own selfishness and to get even with men, whose ability to reproduce well into old age they envy.

Their unwillingness to tame their own greed (insistence on having it all in a world where nobody, not even men, can do so) and stubborn refusal to acknowledge the real biological distinctions between the sexes will do them in, as it has repeatedly in the recent past.

My bet is that, should this procedure spread, it will a) be limited to very few women who can afford it (this is about as likely to get federal coverage as IVF, imo) and b) only aid women up to their late 40's with pregnancies-beyond that, it will either be too risky or too impractical to be applied given the difficulty of 55-60 year old women sustaining pregnancy and recovering afterward.

We're also going to have to see about the lifespan of the frozen portions upon implantation, and how that relates to age (nevermind the side effects said implantation could cause).

[Samseau]

It's only expensive now. 20 years from now probably not.

Quote:

Their unwillingness to tame their own greed (insistence on having it all in a world where nobody, not even men, can do so) and stubborn refusal to acknowledge the real biological distinctions between the sexes will do them in, as it has repeatedly in the recent past.

What is going to do in the feminist machine? Right now it's unstoppable.

So far, for the feminists: the more they want, the more they get.

1. Child bearing ages are now going to be extended by 20-30 years.

2. Women get all the easy high-paying jobs.

3. Women have a huge safety net from the government.


What's to stop the feminists? They're winning the war by leaps and bounds.


You guys think they will get ugly as they age?

I bet science is going to undo that by the end of our lifetimes too.

[Tuthmosis]

This is straight-up disgusting. It reminds me of this awful sight that I caught at an outdoor mall in California once: this woman, who looked to be at least 50, with a pregnant mid-section. This was definitely not fat, it was pregnancy. And her face looked tattered and withered like an old woman's. The absolute youngest she could have been is 50. At the time, I wondered if she was 60. I immediately commented that this must have been some kind of science-based pregnancy.

It doesn't sound like much in a black-and-white description, but it was one of the most unnatural, repulsive crimes against nature I've ever seen. That image haunted me for days.

[dragnet]

(07-09-2012 05:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

It's only expensive now. 20 years from now probably not.

Quote:

Their unwillingness to tame their own greed (insistence on having it all in a world where nobody, not even men, can do so) and stubborn refusal to acknowledge the real biological distinctions between the sexes will do them in, as it has repeatedly in the recent past.

What is going to do in the feminist machine? Right now it's unstoppable.

So far, for the feminists: the more they want, the more they get.

1. Child bearing ages are now going to be extended by 20-30 years.

2. Women get all the easy high-paying jobs.

3. Women have a huge safety net from the government.


What's to stop the feminists? They're winning the war by leaps and bounds.


You guys think they will get ugly as they age?

I bet science is going to undo that by the end of our lifetimes too.

IVF has been around for decades and it's still prohibitively expensive for everyone below upper middle class income. And this procedure is, in many ways, far more invasive.

And if you are a red pill guy, you have nothing to fear from this. Shit, I have no problems with women extending their natural beauty into their 50s if they can, having babies until 70s, etc. Thanks to the red pill and Game, I have nothing to fear because I don't define my masculinity according to my utility to women. For red pill guys women, generally speaking, are playthings & sideshows---disposable estrogen toys. They are not and cannot ever be the main event.

But the blue pillers/betas are in deep shit. These are the guys who think their new job, nice car or whatever is going to make her wet. These are the guys who, deep down, are worried about being sexually irrelevant and define lives their according according to their usefulness to women. These guys are fucked when science completely frees women. I hope for their sake they will finally learn a new way of relating to them.

And as for women getting the easy high-paying jobs---once again, this is really only something that's going to benefit upper crust women. For the vast majority of women, work will suck the same as it always has (same for the guys). And with regards to the gov't safety net---this country is running huge deficits, Europe is teetering on the brink and the emerging economies are experiencing slowdowns. Leaning on gov't largess may not be the best long-term, sustainable strategy.

There is no glorious utopia over the horizon where women as a demographic will take over. It will take a while, but reality will have its say in the end.

[MikeCF]

More younger looking women = more suitable women.

Bring on the anti-aging revolution.

[Excelsior]

(07-09-2012 05:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

It's only expensive now. 20 years from now probably not.

That is what they said about IVF back in '78.

Quote:

What is going to do in the feminist machine?

Demography.

Their fertility rates are too low, and this procedure is not going to raise them above replacement level, for reasons I outlined above and will mention again below.

Quote:

Right now it's unstoppable.

So far, for the feminists: the more they want, the more they get.

1. Child bearing ages are now going to be extended by 20-30 years.

You're being way too optimistic about this development-even the best case scenario is not that rosy, for reasons I mentioned in my last post.

Take a look at this direct quote from the article:

Quote:

"The only thing preventing them from having babies into their old age would be their physical ability to carry a pregnancy, they said."

This limits the distance to which the wall can be moved. VERY few 55-60 year olds have the fortitude to carry a child to term for 9 months without serious risk of complications, and 70 year olds with that fortitude are going to be nonexistant.

This procedure deals with the ovaries and egg production-while healthy ovaries are important, other components of the body are needed to work in order to bring a child to term, and these componenets are unlikely to be healthy enough to do so at 55, 60 or 70 (50? Maybe). This reality, combined with costs and other limiting factors is going to limit the number of women who are able to take advantage of this. Affluent women seeking pregnancy during their mid-late 40's will be the largest beneficiaries, assuming they planned things out and began preserving their ovaries twenty years prior (an unlikely scenario-more on that later).

It is likely that women who try at later ages (55+) are going to have success rates close to those of mid-40's IVF patients-well under 2%. That is not the answer feminists are hoping for.

It is not going to become normal for women to give birth at 60-70. Few women will be able to afford it, and even if they could their bodies, in most cases, are not going to be able to handle the pregnancy without serious complications at such advanced age. The range of fertility, therefore, will not be extended much further beyond its current absolute limit (mid-40's). The main beneficiaries are going to be women in that age range. The child bearing ages may be extended by 5 years or so, not the 20-30 you're fearing.

Now, one more thing-apparently for this procedure to work, women need to remove pieces of the ovary many years in advance.

Quote:

“But you could have grafts removed as a young woman and then have the first replaced as you approach menopausal age. You could then put a slice back every decade."

This works when women have some known health issues (cancers and the like, as seen in the article) that they are preparing to face, but what are the chances of a large number of average women having the foresight or desire (or money) to engage in such a move during their most fertile years (18-30) without any real prompting or health issue? Remember that if the woman does not begin this slicing and storing procedure during her youth, WAY before menopause sets in, she cannot benefit from this new process-she must plan WAY ahead, and (since she will have pieces of her ovaries missing for that time) I assume she'd also need to be sure she didn't want kids during that time before she hit the wall. That is a big caveat.

This will severely limit the spread of this procedure. This requires many years (often decades) of foresight that is likely to be costly. Don't count on the grafting/preservation procedure, 10+ years of storage, and the replacement procedures done later getting covered by federal (or even a majority of private) healthcare plans anywhere in the western world given the voluntary nature of all this. Taxpayers aren't going to front money for hordes of relatively young, but healthy girls with career orientation in mind to get this done "just in case"-only the very sick (cancer, etc) and the rich will be able to pull it off.

Quote:

2. Women get all the easy high-paying jobs.

And can't find any men (still unhappy).

Quote:

3. Women have a huge safety net from the government.

Which will last as long as the large, strong, stable Western governments and economies do.
Have you seen the way said economies have been doing lately? Witness American deficits, EU bailout crises and other assorted follies playing out right now. Don't count on completing your lifetime without seeing some significant shifts in the ability of feminism as we currently know it to sustain itself-it relies on the generous support of a big government in a wealthy economy, and it may not be able to count on these things for too much longer.

Change is coming-crap is going to hit the fan, one way or another, and we will be here to see it (for better or worse). When it does, don't expect feminism as we currently know it to stick around. It will either change significantly or fade further into the background.

Quote:

What's to stop the feminists? They're winning the war by leaps and bounds.

You guys think they will get ugly as they age?

I bet science is going to undo that by the end of our lifetimes too.
[/quote]

Aside from all I've mentioned above, we haven't even gotten to the lifetime of the implants (how long will they last once implanted, how will age impact their effectiveness once implanted, etc) and the side effects (how will body react to delayed menopause and subsequent hormonal changes, etc).
And yes, they will still age as they do now.

Like I said, you're giving this whole thing waaaay more credit than it deserves. I'm confident that this is not the feminist panacea they hope (or that you think) it is. Like dragnet said, there is no feminist utopia over the horizon. Their hold on things is a lot more tenuous than you think.

[Blackhawk]

Huh. Couple this with fatty tissue being the new source of stem cells, and we could see women in their late 40s getting everything liposuctioned off so they can grow new ovaries in a vat and conceive again.

Of course, given osteoporosis and that most women in their 40s have no bone density, the idea that they have enough calcium in their body to successfully build a second human being's skeleton, even on a nine pound scale, seems doubtful.

Some of these ovary tissue transplants coming from a twin is puzzling --wouldn't a twin be the same chronological age? Need to read more on this, but it sounds like the women are storing the ovary sample as part of preparing to undergo chemotherapy.

[Excelsior]

(07-09-2012 06:28 PM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

Some of these ovary tissue transplants coming from a twin is puzzling --wouldn't a twin be the same chronological age?

Yes, but one went through menopause early and the other did not. The one who did not gave a piece of her tissue to the one who did, and that did the trick since her ovaries, though old still, were relatively healthier and pre-menopausal.

[Samseau]

Hey guys, thanks for the responses.


But first off, I'm not "afraid" or "fearing" anything. To be honest, I don't know how I feel about this. It seems that big big changes are coming our way, whether or not we like it.


1. IVF never became cheap because it is relatively ineffective. According to wikipedia, less than 50% of IVF attempts are successful; the cost seems to come from how difficult the procedure is.

Furthermore, IVF never became popular. A procedure needs buyers for it to become cheaper over time. Right now, there isn't much interest in IVF because it cannot help infertile women have their own children. At best, they just get an egg from another woman to put in their womb.

Obviously most women aren't going to want to raise a child who doesn't have their own DNA, just like most men aren't going to want to raise a child who doesn't have his DNA.


2. The health considerations will probably be the main reasons why women get this procedure.

Since having young, healthy ovaries are proven ways to avoid certain forms of cancer, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest for governments to require all girls at the age of 18 to keep some of their ovarian tissue frozen.

The same way we get flu shots as children.

The benefits of preventing menopause from occurring in a woman are huuuuuge. Menopause is a known factor in so many women's diseases - this procedure is going to be guaranteed for all women by the end of 2050. Hell, wouldn't surprise me to see it in play by 2030.


3. Remember guys, our opinions on this, as men, mean jack shit.

The women are going to want it, and they are going to get it. That's all that matters.

I was looking through the comment section, and I saw this comment posted by a career looking woman under the age of 35:

Quote:

You know when I first read this article, it was the best news ever.

-This treatment can help women who have been rendered infertile because of cancer and chemotherapy.
-It can allow women to spend more developing their careers and becoming more financially stable before having a child.
-It can also preserve the integrity of the DNA passed to therapy child and it can minimize birth defects caused by aged ovarian tissue. Granted you still have to worry about damaged aged sperm, but that can be avoided by preserving sperm as well for later.
-It can protect women from bone loss, dementia, and heart disease, the number one killer of women.
How is any of this terrible? I highly doubt women who receive this treatment will do when they're 50+ And if they're healthy and able to give birth without danger, why not let them?

I mean it's so obvious. Women see this procedure and fall in love with it.

Just the mere idea of preserving her youth is enough to make a young girl squeal in delight.

There's just no way this won't become popular. Older women probably won't like this, as they're too set in their ways.

But, the women who embrace science will be able to pass these views on to their children, while the ones who cling to the past will be forgotten.

[kosko]

They have been doing this with livestock for decades. Again this all goes to my theory that Men will be subjugated to the 'slaughter' while females will become controlled scientific commodities like livestock.

The more things become industrialized the less value men have.

If this is on course to be online by 2050 then expect a negative effect to happen to Men in that time frame. Millions of females may opt to freeze their eggs but it will only take 5 men max to impregnate all those eggs.

[Samseau]

Quote:

Have you seen the way said economies have been doing lately? Witness American deficits, EU bailout crises and other assorted follies playing out right now. Don't count on completing your lifetime without seeing some significant shifts in the ability of feminism as we currently know it to sustain itself-it relies on the generous support of a big government in a wealthy economy, and it may not be able to count on these things for too much longer.

Of course the western world is financially fucked, will it matter?

Look at how fast and far feminism is spreading across the globe; even if the USA or EU falls the next world power might be just as feminist. Brazil? Roosh is reporting this place is becoming hardcore feminist. China? Men are treated like dogs there, women might have more power.

I'm skeptical of men-will-be-avenged type arguments, as the history books have taught me that when things get really bad, men are the first ones to die.

Who is to say if the next world power will be worse or better for men? There's no way to know.

[kbell]

I think there will a much higher risk for disabilities and mutations. Also the mother will not have the energy to raise the child. The kids will suffer from it as well. The mother would die earlier too in the childs life as well.

[kosko]

(07-09-2012 08:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

Have you seen the way said economies have been doing lately? Witness American deficits, EU bailout crises and other assorted follies playing out right now. Don't count on completing your lifetime without seeing some significant shifts in the ability of feminism as we currently know it to sustain itself-it relies on the generous support of a big government in a wealthy economy, and it may not be able to count on these things for too much longer.

Of course the western world is financially fucked, will it matter?

Look at how fast and far feminism is spreading across the globe; even if the USA or EU falls the next world power might be just as feminist. Brazil? Roosh is reporting this place is becoming hardcore feminist. China? Men are treated like dogs there, women might have more power.

I'm skeptical of men-will-be-avenged type arguments, as the history books have taught me that when things get really bad, men are the first ones to die.

Who is to say if the next world power will be worse or better for men? There's no way to know.

Look back and start to look forward and you notice trends.

The biggest elephant in the room is China. China did not rise from the ashes on its own it was heavily invested in and propped up once Mao took power. Shanghai did not rise from sticks overnight and neither did Beijing.

My guess is that whatever new structure is implemented it will closely be modeled after China. I'm always taught about implantations of size and creating programs that can easily be doubled, tripled in scope if needed. China has been left of the hook to murder and pillage its own people for close to 40 years while racking up the most UN humanitarianism/Human Rights awards when they have killed close to 100million of their own people.

Make any sense? Of course not.

IMO China has been the test lab for the style of Governance and central control that will be exported globally. This Chinese model, and the EU model of bureaucracy look to be the future IMO. The EU is a mess and will probably crack but it most likely be fixed with more stringent and central controls via the China model. The Chinese model will crack under its centralized control and viola it will be fixed by more liberalization via the EU model... see the patterns?

You would remove the cultural and religious differences that are center in the Chinese model and introduce technology instead. Men will still be favored if physical means still exist and are dominant, but if technology shifts then that would tip the scale the other way.

Women in the end will get fucked over the hardest. They will monetize this shit. I'll bet my last dollar on it. A female will have to slave her whole life for the chance to maybe have a child.

*This know way a knock on the Chinese people. They took the bait and ran with it to prop up their own people. They know have a seat at the dinner table when they didn't before. But just like a University gets funding to run tests on mice the Chinese model was funded as a experiment for the exact same way.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I would like to believe Roissy on this, but as Samseau said, I'm still skeptical of the wall standing. They're removing too many bricks from it (pun intended)

[Timoteo]

"IVF never became cheap because it is relatively ineffective. According to wikipedia, less than 50% of IVF attempts are successful; the cost seems to come from how difficult the procedure is."

This is probably a fact that most people don't know. IVF isn't automatic. I have good friends that have done it. She couldn't conceive naturally, due to cysts or fibroids or something. They had 2 or 3 failed rounds before they got their first daughter. Then they had another couple of failed rounds before they had twin daughters. She wants to try for more too. Both were in their early 30s when they married (second marriage for both), so they both worked like dogs to put away money for the procedures, which may be something like $10,000 a pop. I believe during each procedure, they implant multiple fertilized eggs, with the hope that at least one will take.

[soup]

Does anyone know the evolutionary reason for why women are still able to produce for several years after their looks tank and hit the wall?

[WesternCancer]

(04-23-2013 12:57 AM)soup Wrote:  

Does anyone know the evolutionary reason for why women are still able to produce for several years after their looks tank and hit the wall?

My guess would be that there wasn't much of a selective pressure on the trait. the age of reproduction ends when offspring start being born with a higher frequency of defects. This would be correlated with age and since the life expectancy wasn't too long I think the trait just developed along with that

[megatron]

(07-09-2012 12:51 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

This was posted at Heartiste.

Quote:

A technique to remove pieces of ovary, store it for decades and then replace it with delicate surgery could effectively put a woman's menopause 'on ice', doctors said.

A conference heard how more than 20 babies have been born worldwide to patients who either had their own ovarian tissue removed before treatment that would have left them infertile, and replaced afterwards, or twins where one donated tissue to the other.

My first thoughts:


The last consequences of living a slut lifestyle are finally going to be removed by science.

All we need is some male birth control, and we'll be officially living in our Brave New Utopia.

Consequences for sluts will never be fully eliminated.

1. Alphas and Greater Betas will not wife up sluts, for the most part.

2. Sluts will still suffer damage to their bonding mechanism, rendering them unable to pair bond. Feminist divorce laws will help them in divorce, but nothing can restore the fact that a bunch of 40 year old married sluts will face a grim future where a) they can't connect with their husband b) they have almost no alternative, because they'll only do worse in the SMP after divorce.

Times have changed. 20 years ago, sluts still live the feminist paradise of Slut it Up during the 20's and marry in the 30's. Now, that dream is going the way of the dodo. Most quality men are either not marrying or being very discerning in choosing a mate.

[iknowexactly]

(07-10-2012 09:33 AM)Timoteo Wrote:  

"IVF never became cheap because it is relatively ineffective. According to wikipedia, less than 50% of IVF attempts are successful; the cost seems to come from how difficult the procedure is."
........the procedures, which may be something like $10,000 a pop. I believe during each procedure, they implant multiple fertilized eggs, with the hope that at least one will take.

15K out of pocket here in NorCal. That shit is like launching the fucking Space Shuttle, exotic microsurgery.

My friend was a very hot, athletic 34 year old, spoiled and narcissistic as hell. But you could already see the wrinkles and aging clearly starting.

Probably fucked tons of guys, tall blond that could have carouseled all through her teens and 20's.

- Full sedation operation where they go in and dig her eggs out
- Fertilize the eggs and the couple picks from them
- second full sedation operation where they implant the fertilized eggs in her.
- in my friend's case, a really hard pregnancy which she tried to use idiot midwives and ended up in serious condition in the hospital at childbirth; she said she wanted to die it was so bad, she got severe post-partum depression. Took her months to recover.

They don't accept it but the resilience to a huge trauma like pregnancy is really best tolerated by early 20's women, maybe 27 at the most.

Some younger women, about 24 that I've met are clued into this, they know that trying to have kids in mid-3o' s is not the greatest idea.

[malc]

I met a woman who adopted a child in her late 40s (she started the process years ago). She said that it was a lot harder than taking care of a child in her 30s and her 20s, and she doesn't have the energy or the body to properly take care of her new adopted child. Even getting a full 8 hours of sleep she doesn't recover fully. People are not meant to have children in their late 40s. She'll probably be ok once the kid is school aged, but those first 4/5 years are going to be though. She said each time she had a child she thought it was the toughest thing ever, until she had another child.

And this was a fit, skinny woman who looked great for her age and took care of herself. You would think she's in her late 30s. She had a husband, and her mother there too to help.

[Hannibal]

This is likely going to be a feminist talking point and nothing more.

Kind of like women in combat roles in the military, or women as firefighters.

It doesn't matter that only a few of them will do it.

Just that enough do it to become a talking point.

"Yeah, well we've got this technology now so get your head out of the dark ages, old man, because us women can give birth at whatever age we want!".