Poll: So, you're the last man (woman) on Earth, left with everyone of the opposite sex...

[Saulkar]

Spoiler

Haha! Glad those games are not forgotten.

OT: I honestly think that all of the technologies that we hold taboo have always been on someone's budget so things like cloning and artificial wombs would be brought out and those that hold the patents hold the future of the species. Pretty scary in my honest opinion.

I am in my 40's and losing my mojo

Not only that but your body has shriveled up to the size of a squirrel (and almost as furry) and your hair's turned white and fell out. Do not get me started on your plastic complexion.

 

[veloper]

Male or female, I don't see this scenario being very enjoyable. You'll either be a sperm factory (as insemination is a fuck lot more efficient than intercourse) or a constant baby oven. Either way sex won't be on the table. Getting strapped down and used is what you're in for.

You'd have to be damn quick to kill or castrate yourself in order to escape, because once you're in custody you'd be under suicide watch or just permanently kept in a coma (to ensure you don't hurt yourself and can be monitored at all time).

Nah, nothing so dramatic is needed.
The first priority would be simply stay out of sight and then put on a burka or a nikaab or some such, as nobody is expecting to find a guy anywhere anyway and then just look around first.

Then you'd soon figure out that the limiting bottleneck is not your balls, but the tiny capacity of already closed-down IVF clinics and the lack of specialists, as the catastrophe had come unexpected.

Once you get found out, out of a 7 billion total of dead males and living females and grannies, only about one billion healthy young women might be eligible for IVF treatment and the waiting lists would be decades long.

Production on your end would become a trivial matter after a short while, as there's easily a billion spermatozoids in just one spew, if you're a healthy guy.

If the system were globally and efficiently organized, you'd have an initial rush of tiny, cooled drops send to clinics across the globe. If not, then just one small beaker to the one lucky, local clinic in the region where you were dropped. That might be inconvenient, but then it just becomes infrequent.

OP's fantasy of becoming a highly prized, recreational, sex slave is actually more plausible than milking it for the rest of your live, like it were actually milk for drinking.
Same for the female version, because there would be no hope for the world anyway, so no need to even bother with the baby oven idea.

 

[sumanoskae]

So my father, my uncles, my three favorite teachers and all of my childhood friends are dead... and this is supposed to please me because it might mean that the heterosexual women of the world have become sexually desperate, and will presumably want to fuck me for reasons that have nothing to do with any attraction to me personally?

If I was interested in obligatory sex I would be rolling around in a pile of hookers at this very moment, sir; I'm sure as fuck not going to doom the human race and condemn all the women of the world to either forced lesbianism or celibacy for it.

This is all without considering all the miserable implications of this situation. I could probably count on being sexually assaulted at some point, not to mention all the awkward conversations I'm going to have where I am forced to explain to all the women I don't personally find attractive that despite being literally the only person who is still capable of doing so, I'm NOT interested in getting into their pants.

 

[Aesir23]

Spoiler: Ew, no

I imagine this is more of a straight-guy fantasy, because it really really would not work out for anyone else. Be used as a baby oven by a bunch of asshole dudes? I'd rather literally jump off a bridge. So I guess that's my answer. It's not sexy.

Spoiler: Me

Wiping out half the population would kick the guts out of society. It'd not be a sexy place to be. No government, no organisation, mass panic, no essential services and piles of corpses everywhere.

Also this. This is less "sexy harem situation" and more "terrifying dystopia".

I'm pretty much going to echo this. I imagine this "Last man/woman on earth" scenario is sexy for some people but the idea of being the last woman on earth left alone with a bunch of men I likely don't know and don't trust is not a pleasant one. The first thing I would do is probably make a grab for the nearest gun and turn it on myself. As the Princess Bride gif so eloquently said, "Death first".

Enjoy your dystopian future, boys!

 

[DayDark]

I would probably seclude myself from people, because fuck that's a lot of pressure. I would be like "nope, find a solution to NO guys left on earth instead."

 

[WolfThomas]

Realistically conventional breeding would be far too slow. So to save the world, it would just be a lot of masturbating into cups so people can be artificially inseminated.

 

[MeatMachine]

I would start a street gang, but we ride around in tanks and blow shit up! We'd have a bunch of different styles of tanks, big Goliath ones, smaller zippy ones, laser tanks, rocket tanks, hover tanks, tanks with heavily armored fronts. We'd go around blowing up major land marks and just 'causing a bunch of mischief and getting into turf wars with other tank gangs.

I think we can all agree this would be the only correct response and would in no way backfire.

Thank you for this post.

In all seriousness, I'd just shoot myself in the head. If the weight of humanity rested entirely on me as the last of my particular kind, I cringe to think of what having a set of nuts as a hot, exclusive luxury would drive every other person on the planet to want to do to me.

That, and I have a tad of an antinatalist streak in me anyway, despite the comparatively healthy world we live in currently.

 

[axlryder]

snip

That wouldn't happen. There's too much risk of injury to the important bits or death. Even putting your body under that much physical and psychological stress could render you infertile or at least the quality of your sperm extremely poor. the inability to move and being force fed a liquid diet would wreak similar havoc on your body systems. The reality is that the greater good would most likely prevail and you'd pretty much get what you wanted in the end. so long as you stayed under house arrest (which would include "yard time"), did all the right exercises, ate all the right foods, maximized sperm production, yada yada yada. It wouldn't be a fun life, but you would most likely get your handjobs out of it (sorry if that bursts your sardonic bubble).

 

[axlryder]

snip

That wouldn't happen. There's too much risk of injury to the important bits or death. Even putting your body under that much physical and psychological stress could render you infertile or at least the quality of your sperm extremely poor. the inability to move and being force fed a liquid diet would wreak similar havoc on your body systems. The reality is that the greater good would most likely prevail and you'd pretty much get what you wanted in the end. so long as you stayed under house arrest (which would include "yard time"), did all the right exercises, ate all the right foods, maximized sperm production, yada yada yada. It wouldn't be a fun life, but you would most likely get your handjobs out of it (sorry if that bursts your sardonic bubble).

So even two weeks later people are still pretending that the mutilation strategy is the immediate go-to solution of simply finding a guy in the all-female post-apocalypse and not what happens when the "house arrest" strategy fails because the guy is a scumbag who threatens to kill himself if you don't do anything and everything he says.

I never said that the mutilation strategy was the go-to nor was it part of the conversation that the guy refused the general idea of "structured milking" (which would naturally include various health regimen and safety protocols). I'm saying that if the dude is going to make "depraved" or lofty demands then they'd probably concede to those because they have little to no substantial impact on the world as a whole, whereas the quality of his sperm does. This conversation was based on a guy who essentially said just that, and you went along with the depraved demands as a partial justification for your "mutilation" strategy, which I'm calling BS on.

 

[axlryder]

Oh, so your argument is that the guy should just get anything and everything he wants and that the woman of the world should bend to his whim because holding him prisoner and preventing him from ever leveraging his own life again is too much of a threat to his sperm? How wonderful. Though you vastly underestimate the human capability of keeping something prisoner and very much alive and healthy enough to produce semen.

This entire conversation began when someone said that the last man could throw his weight around and force women to do any depraved act he wanted and the women couldn't do shit about it. I responded with saying that there was lots of shit they could do about it. There's my strategy of lopping his limbs off and force feeding him, but there was also another person's strategy of just keeping him in a coma because we should feel sympathy for this scumbag who threatens humanity's existence for the sake of trying to force women to do things for him.

And you vastly underestimate how truly sensitive human physiology can be, especially the reproductive system. Yes, it's possible that your strategy might result in very little difference in total sperm count and quality, but the risk is huge and not worth it unless the guy is truly demanding something that would be detrimental to a vast number of people.

Let me phrase it in a way that might register with your biased sympathy towards females: if a girl possessed the last viable womb in existence, and she said she'd only willingly have babies if she could do a guy with a strap on every night, then it's a lot easier and safer to just let her pound a guy in the ass then go through all the trouble of forcing her to carry babies to term. Sure, men could choose to protect that one (or those few) precious asshole(s), but that would be stupid. Hell, she could request ME specifically and I'd still let her do it (even though I assuredly wouldn't want to), because not doing so would be insanely selfish. Just as it would be stupid to not let the guy have his way with a few girls, or have a giant statue constructed in his image, or have giant fireworks celebrations every night, as these things are really fairly inconsequential to most humans.

 

[axlryder]

snip

Judging by your readiness to jump into the fray regarding forcing men to produce cum, and the fact that you didn't mention doing the same to a woman regarding babies (even though a woman ending humanity similarly for selfish reasons has been brought up), and that such a pattern follows with ALL of your comments I've read (sympathize with women, fuck men), yeah, it seems like a reasonable assumption. Also, nice implying that some people in this thread are petulant, self-centered scum.

Also, this is about mitigating risks, and a few people's now redundant existence is not worth practically any risk. Obviously the risk of forcing a woman to have children is MUCH higher, but that's not really the point. It's fine that you don't have a "greater good view" I suppose, I just think it's a dangerously sentimental one in this sort of situation.

Someone with a strong sex drive and sense of self-interest isn't really all that likely to commit suicide. I mean, someone can be dumb, short sighted and not even close suicidal. Someone like that is probably actually preferable, because they'd be easier to manipulate. Of course, the risk of suicide will be there for literally anyone, especially in such a stressful situation, so I guess you think we should strap down anyone, man or women, for the sake of the greater good? That would be a fair enough point.

 

[axlryder]

snip

You're basically saying that a person who wants to end all of humanity because making babies is inconvenient is different from a person who, and let's be clear, wants some lofty but ultimately inconsequential demands (all of the opposite gender bending to one's will not falling under that category). I'd agree. Humanity must go on, and if a woman or man (both genders vocalized that within this very thread) wants to kill themselves, I don't see why you'd be any less willing to subject her to that incredibly depraved form of torture you described (which was bizarrely the first thing your mind jumped to) or the more reasonable forms of restraint than a woman who wants to fuck a guy with a strap-on. I'd actually be MUCH quicker to give the latter woman her freedom, despite her potentially being a terrible person. Obviously she can't produce nearly as many offspring, but that doesn't change the reality that the fate of humanity rests on her shoulders.

sperm quality and quantity are not solely affected by direct damage to one's sex organs, it is related to psychological and physical health factors. So no, strapping him down should be a LAST resort, unless we've decided that the risks of letting him be free (and by extension the risks to his sperm) outweigh the potential damage done by forcing him into a state of immobility and being fed nutrients through a needle.

To the last bit, I'm saying if that was your justification for it being an immediate strategy, it's not a terrible one. Otherwise I'm saying your idea that "man will probably kill himself anyway because he's a dick, so I'd be justified in strapping him down" doesn't really line up with reality. It doesn't even line up with your own reasoning of NOT doing that to the people in this thread who said they'd just outright kill themselves.

 

[axlryder]

snip

Why do you keep thinking that I'm not operating under the situation where your depraved torture scenario only plays out when the man wants to violate one of your personal sacred cows? I'm saying the the thing your brain jumped to as an initial/likely solution (lopping off limbs and cattle prods in the ass) sounds pretty fucked up when it's coming from someone who's condemning me for pragmatism.

there's no reason to sympathize with the baby-making woman who'd have her eggs harvested here, just as there is no reason to sympathize with the cum-machine man. Such sentimentality is pointless and foolish in this case. While the man would also be uncomfortable, I agree the woman would have it worse, but this fact is pretty irrelevant when it comes to ensuring their cooperation. If the woman wants to fuck guys with strap-ons to blow off some steam, so be it, same for the man.

What's more, You still have yet to give a "good" reason why you wouldn't do it to the suicidal one vs the rapist one. Even if the rapist were assumed to commit suicide out of spite if you denied their request (I'll go with that, even though you originally said "anyway" as though you thought they'd do it regardless of whether or not their demands were met, which I simply don't buy), then you'd still need a tangible reason TO deny them said requests vs the risks associated with permanent restraint, the risks of which you eagerly low-ball, refusing to account for the fact that I'm speaking to more than just the binary of fertile/infertile. I haven't really seen a reason for this. If their requests get impractically lofty, then perhaps you go with plan B, but otherwise it just seems like moral indignation. The idea that this person is unstable no matter what they're given also just sounds like wishful thinking on your end. Further, if you were to do it to the would-be rapist because you really think he/she'd kill himself/herself out of spite, then you have no logical reason not to do it to the blatantly suicidal one. If you really are saying that someone should have the right to terminate humanity because they don't really like the idea of producing endless cum/lots of babies, vs someone who wants to live out whatever deep dark fantasy they have as a condition for cooperation, then I really think you're clearly biased.

Also, you haven't really outright said what you feel the right course of action would be for the woman who demanded she be able to take advantage of men in order for her to agree to having babies for whoever the governing body deems appropriate/give her eggs for research. Let's say she requested you specifically. Would you, assuming there was no better alternative, appeal to the solution that you first proposed (assuming the children could be carried to term and be healthy)? or would you take one for the team? Do you feel others should do the same?

Also, there are more scenarios that would result in the need to go to the last resort options, but the things you seemed to have your jimmies most rustled about aren't really among them.