How would modern society react if Mate Or Die was in effect for humans and mating also gave unaging?

It's this question, but starts at the modern age, instead of the stone age.

'Mate' is defined as penile-vaginal sex with ejaculation.

Requirement starts at puberty. People know when it starts, how long they've got, the general info that this death-clock resets by sex, and they are also killed, via magic.

Death by Mate or Die causes the conversion of all nervous system electricity into photons, causing a white flash around the body.

The Mate Or Die condition cannot be circumvented by science. Inter-sexuality does exist. The mating condition is not reworked to prevent that from being an automatic death sentence. And male/female-ness for the mating condition is gonadally determined.

Each mating gets each partner 30 days of life. Unless it's a woman, whose pregnancy keeps her alive for the whole pregnancy, and 30 days after birth.

Mating with condoms or any other kind of physical contraceptive, grants 1/2 the time to live of the previous mating. Like a 30-day girl and 30-day guy mate, and then they both have 15 days to live, keep doing it, and they could get to a point where they can't mate fast enough to prevent death.

Effects of males mating with pregnant females is the same as contraception-mating.

The Pill and other chemicals that cause the woman's body to hormonally mimic pregnancy also cause the death clock to change as if the woman is pregnant.

However, other non-physical, non-immediate contraceptives, like the rhythm method, or douching, don't shrink the 30-day death clock.

But, Inter-Uterine Implants or any kind of Surgery, do shrink the death clock.

Note that if a male gets a girl pregnant from mating, they still get 30 days from that mating, but if they mate with her again, on their 16th day, then they just get one extra day of life. So, it's best to space it out farther apart... And there's some math like... 30+15+7.5+~4 +~2 + ~1 = ~59 ... If you time it so they cut it really close, they get a little bit less than ~2 months before they have to switch to a non-pregnant girl.

That's also how it works with normal sex. If you have non-pregnant sex on consecutive days, you keep adding only 1 day to your death clocks. as 30 days from day of last sex is 1 day before the last time. The death clock counts from day of last mating, and resets at each mating.

Also, women don't run out of eggs. Unless they already did.

People can die by injury and illness, but not of old age. Immortality begins at 20, but the 'immortals' are still subject to Mate Or Die. Also, the mating does not reverse age until they hit 20. Menopausal women have their menopause stop after their first new mating.

Infertile people function basically as normal in the universe, as long as males can still ejaculate, and women still have a vagina, so certain injuries will kill by proxy.

If you're on life support, you still need sex, or you'll die.

Everyone that's subject to Mate Or Die gets 30 days on their death clock when this is implemented.

Humanity is defined as the homo sapiens species. 'Human' is anything that can have offspring with us.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "If your heart may not be healthy enough for sexual activity, well, that's just too bad for you!" $\endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    Commented Dec 11, 2015 at 15:15
  • $\begingroup$ @CortAmmon - Oh, yeah! Old people exist in this one! Changed a few things to reflect. See anything worth noting? $\endgroup$
    – Malady
    Commented Dec 11, 2015 at 15:22
  • $\begingroup$ I'm a little confused about "The Pill". These mostly work by dosing up on hormones which fool the body into thinking the woman is already pregnant. How does this not trigger the penalties which actually pregnant women suffer? It also provides a very neat solution to the problem which makes the whole situation a whole lot "neater", which is kinda boring. $\endgroup$
    – AndreiROM
    Commented Dec 11, 2015 at 15:25
  • $\begingroup$ @AnderiROM - I agree with you... changing with trepidation... $\endgroup$
    – Malady
    Commented Dec 11, 2015 at 16:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Malandy Instantaneous and somewhat dignified death might be preferable for a lot of people. I think it would probably be my choice in this scenario. Depending on the scenario you're trying to create you might want to make it more ... unpleasant ... $\endgroup$
    – Tom
    Commented Dec 11, 2015 at 16:46

4 Answers 4


I would say that our modern society is worse equipped to survive this scenario than our ancestors thousands of years ago were.

Here's where we currently stand:

in the West, women are legally equal to men in every way. Our society is geared around monogamy, with property laws (including inheritance) reflecting this. Furthermore, infidelity is grounds for divorce, which is typically more damaging to men than women (some may disagree with that statement).

My Opinion:

The Western world would experience massive die-offs, especially in more liberal population centers, such as large cities, as well as within religious communities where sex is viewed as some sort of taboo. Our world will, based on how the situation is handled in those first days of the cataclysm, determine whether civilization goes one of two ways (discussed below).

1 .Massive Initial Die-Offs:

First things first:

  • All/most inmates will probably be dead before we can organize a reasonable response to the situation. After all, most of them have probably not had intercourse (male-female, at least) in a while, and prisons are not going to be able to arrange conjugal visits in under a month. Our system is simply not that flexible, and we will have too many problems to deal with, especially in that first wave.

  • Single men, women, and homosexuals of both genders will be in trouble. They will have to make some arrangements - fast. Undesirable men and women are in big trouble.

  • Those who closely adhere to religious beliefs (especially teenagers from within religious circles who are told that virginity is a very important virtue - and actually follow those tenets) will also be in trouble. In general, societies where sex is a taboo will experience massive casualties - watch out, Asia.

  • Anyone who is severely injured (on life support) and not physically able to have sex is also in trouble. It certainly complicates medical care.

  • Men not physically able to have sex anymore (old), will die.

  • Quite possibly a lot of military personnel die. Most soldiers are on bases, on duty for weeks at a time.

2. Societal Handicaps:

In our society sex, while constantly advertised, and omnipresent, carries a pretty heavy taboo as well.

  • Casual sex is not as easy to come by as movies would have us believe. Not every guy can walk out the door and return with a woman on his arm.

  • "Easy women" carry a pretty serious stigma.

  • To further complicate things, there's a pretty scary array of sexually transmitted diseases making the rounds as well.

  • Our legal system, especially as relating to rape, and consent is simply not geared to handle this situation. This may sound like an endorsement for rape - it is not. However, it's unrealistic to expect someone who's very survival depends on having sex right there and then to respect your rejection. In the face of death, you will simply not care. Any man - or woman - who is imprisoned is also, basically, receiving a death sentence.

3. Imminent Changes


People may not figure out that they are now immortal for quite a while. When this happens, pregnancy will not be well looked upon: after all, we only have room/resources for so many people.

In the mean time, however, a pregnant woman is simply a liability. A man having casual sex with a woman simply to survive is probably not going to be interested in caring for her or her future child. That woman may have a difficult time finding someone to fulfill her own needs. Abortions will probably sky-rocket.

Furthermore, the birth of male children is now a potential liability. If the male-female ratio becomes skewed in the wrong direction society itself is in trouble. Not immediately, but after a few decades, you may see a decisive trend in the abortion of male fetuses (or the outright killing of male children in third world countries).

Armed Conflict

Armies are typically formed of men, sometimes being out in the field for months without the company of women. This, obviously, will have to change, with the possibility of pregnancy becoming a very serious issue. Married men cannot reasonably be expected to remain loyal to their spouses. Neither will the women they leave behind.


Monogamy is out the window. Which means that property and divorce laws are also out the window - at least if you want to avoid the men starting a revolution. Feminists will not like that one.

Women/Men Ratio

Countries such as China, where there are a lot more men than women are screwed. The only way the species will survive under these circumstances is if each man has a fair number of available females to mate with - or at least one female which is on the kind of birth control which circumvents the worst of the penalties.

Crime Rates

The murder of men is going to skyrocket. Each and every man is suddenly competing with every other man for sex. This will not end well. Male children are also in danger - they are you soon-to-be competitors.

The kidnapping of women is also going to become quite popular. Forced prostitution, rape ... you name it. "The oldest of professions" and its practitioners is about to become very popular. How will



Two main possible outcomes are possible:

Outcome 1

Societies, after the initial shock, stabilizes. While property and consent laws change, we simply adapt to deal with the situation. We become a lot more open about sex, and "care centers" where both men and women can go to have their needs fulfilled become common. Immortality opens a whole new can of worms, but we deal with that as it comes.

Outcome 2

This is most likely what will transpire within third world, or unstable countries.

The initial die-offs are so severe, and the authorities so inflexible/incompetent in dealing with the situation, that massive riots are sparked. Extremists gain power, and the most obvious rules for survival are enforced:

  • Many men are executed on flimsy excuses (dissenters, the "weak", etc.), as they are "competition"
  • Women lose their rights and are basically enslaved

NOTE: This is just off the top of my head. I will polish it up later. Also, please don't take offense at my response to an imaginary situation. I know some of the topics discussed are a little sensitive.

  • $\begingroup$ Sorry... People are gonna die in massive fear unless they're released... "People know when it starts, how long they've got, the general info that this death-clock resets by sex, and they are also killed, via magic." $\endgroup$
    – Malady
    Commented Dec 11, 2015 at 16:19
  • $\begingroup$ I think it's pretty hard to enslave women when they outnumber you around 9-to-1. $\endgroup$
    – Mermaker
    Commented Dec 11, 2015 at 16:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Malandy - I should have paid more attention :'( $\endgroup$
    – AndreiROM
    Commented Dec 11, 2015 at 16:21
  • $\begingroup$ @ThalesPereira - not at all. Look at Britain's colonies. A small contingent of colonial official kept entire native populations under their heels. It all depends how ruthless you are in enforcing your laws. $\endgroup$
    – AndreiROM
    Commented Dec 11, 2015 at 16:22
  • $\begingroup$ @AndreiROM The natives didn't know how to use guns and were otherwise foreign people. Try to imagine yourself handling your daughters for enslavement, and tell me that it will be a possible way of living in this world. $\endgroup$
    – Mermaker
    Commented Dec 11, 2015 at 16:25

This would very rapidly take humanity to a much higher female:male ratio. Since sex with pregnant women counts less, you need at least five women for every man, probably considerably more.

It is quite possible that one sex will make a commodity the other. Certainly sex work will have the biggest boon in human history and become legitimate, since access to sex becomes a survival necessity. I wouldn't be surprised to find brothels in every supermarket.

Effectively you're keeping women perpetually pregnant, which results in a massive population growth. You'd get about 60% increase globally every year: even converting all available land to high-intensity agriculture and the entire population living on GM rice, we'd exceed the Earth's total ability to feed us within a few years. To manage that I would expect the immediate, total and compulsory use of non-barrier contraception. I would think everybody would receive contraceptive implants, and probably some license system would be used give people a break from them and have children. Back of the envelope calculations suggest that there would be no stable population level, and humanity would be condemned to boom-bust cycles.

The loss of barrier contraception would also massively increase the prevalence of STIs. That could cause people to form closed networks of sexual partners, with strict rules on health and fidelity, which in the long run could displace the family.

Health, particularly mental health, will take a massive hit. LGBT people will be especially badly affected for obvious reasons. Monogamous relationships will effectively become impossible. People will become traumatised by the necessity of involuntary sex. Mental health problems will also suddenly carry a huge risk of death, since both problems and treatments are strongly associated with sexual problems.

Last, but certainly not least, our concept of sexual consent will probably go out the window. An act is not a crime if it really is necessary for survival, so committing rape about one a month would be a valid lifestyle choice.

Personally, I would simply wait out my initial 30 days. I have absolutely no desire for immortality, I'm a gay man, and I've survived sexual assault and am therefore rather touchy about sex under duress. Death seems very much preferable to living in this scenario.

  • $\begingroup$ Gay or not, death is certainly preferable. I would too wait my 30 days, for the pain that my family would have to endure would be too much for one to live happily with. $\endgroup$
    – Mermaker
    Commented Dec 11, 2015 at 17:51

Everybody would die really fast.

Those rules will create a impossible setting for life in a modern society.

As soon as those rules enter in action, most puberty-aged children will die.

That will happens because people won't be able to adapt that fast to a change like this. After this happens, misery will hit every country in the world. Most moms would be devastated by this loss, as will be every father, and people will not really be able to focus on something like sex for a while.

I imagine that most parents would just give up and die instead of living in a world like this one. Having your children die for some random event in the universe is pretty hardcore, and it would kill most of the hope on the future in the hearts of everyone.

I know that I would be really nervous if I was forced to put my daughters to "mate" with someone because of this. I know that my wife would be really sad if I had to search for other people to avoid dying.

Even if we did this, the stress would eventually kill anyone out. I don't think I would be able to ejaculate, even if my life was on the line, if my mind was stressed out about all of this going on with my family. I would be worried to no end in this scenario.

I think that my family and I would keep up for a few months, but we eventually would give up. So many dreams shattered and so many pain inflicted to the world would kill all the hope in a nice future. Seeing children die if they don't make sex is not nice.

Not nice at all.

In the end, I think that my family would just decide to move on and give up. The world is not nice anymore.

As a side note, thinking about what would happen with my family in your proposed world was hard. Really hard. So, I have to ask a personal favor and ask you to stop making writers imagine their families dead because of lack of sex. This question was not a good one to answer.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Woah... Yeah. This is like a Death World, but worse. Gonna actually think on what the world'd be like when asking these Modern Society questions. I don't always have to satisfy my curiousity... $\endgroup$
    – Malady
    Commented Dec 11, 2015 at 16:07
  • $\begingroup$ Would the 30 day adjustment period help? Although... those days of adjustment have to keep in mind that society must keep going... So, there's less time for adjustment? Sorry to... traumatize you? In pursuit of my own curiosity... $\endgroup$
    – Malady
    Commented Dec 11, 2015 at 16:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Malandy No, I doubt it will help something. Society doesn't work really well with random death-rules, even more if they put the life of your children on the line. People would mostly die from stress. $\endgroup$
    – Mermaker
    Commented Dec 11, 2015 at 16:37
  • $\begingroup$ To be honest, I'm not sure if this question is on topic anymore. It's becoming increasingly similar to a Idea Generation Question. $\endgroup$
    – Mermaker
    Commented Dec 11, 2015 at 16:47
  • $\begingroup$ How would I bring it to heel? Or does that idiom not work that way... Hmm... $\endgroup$
    – Malady
    Commented Dec 11, 2015 at 16:49

Dictatorship, anarchy ... or utopia?

First some random thoughts about modern age benefits:

I think this works in the modern age much better than the stone age.

  1. media & communication: people can coordinate their actions better. A rather innocent result could be having mobile phone apps automatically searching for suitable partners in the area around you, and factor in things like womens' non-fertile (= desirable) days. Limiting intercourse to these would be the only way of somewhat avoiding catastrophe, as then the population could be kept stable.

  2. aphrodisiacs & Viagra: while very few meds of the former type have been found, I would consider stimulants like cocaine and N-methylamphetamine to fit into this category, as would certain euphoria-causing downers like opiates or benzodiazepines. This is the way to avoid dying for shy people or those overly faithful to their partners. Inhumane but still not catastrophic would thus be taking any partner available, no matter whether you find them attractive or not, and then dosing the man with cocaine and Viagra and sedating the woman with downers. This would not necessarily lead to addiction if sex is allowed only once every 30 days anyway (and with a female not fertile at the time).

However, these are only tools to survive the short term (the months after the devastating news reports). Afterwards, society will change rapidly, and irreversibly:

This is an unstable system, prone to falling into either extremes. People could be saved for example by a technology-driven (first world) or religion-driven (third world, think of fertility rites) dictatorship that uses improved NSA-methods (first world) or widespread Gestapo-like denunciation (third world) to keep control. Everyone's clock must be known to the leaders, as well as the infertile days of a woman. Mating would be arranged every 30 days for men and as often as possible during her infertile days for the women. People not agreeing will be "imprisoned" (left to die) without mercy. By careful breeding selection or genetic engineering, human fertility will be brought down to either lengthen the womens' periods, allow more infertile days and/or make the males produce mainly useless sperm. This is the humane possibility (!).

There is one alternative, that is much less agreeable. In a state of absolute anarchy, bands of men would roam around armed, capturing women and holding them as slaves. In order to let the whole group survive, gang-raping of a single woman by everybody will be the norm. These gangs would fight each other to the death, obviously, and will kill a percentage of their offspring (the weak males), or, if you are slowed down to much by women and children, murder each woman after the gang-rape and continue on. Most valuable commodity after women, (and food, water and ammunition) would be drugs, as you will steamroll all the other gangs if your guys are methamphetamine/morphine driven and the others aren't. You do not need to sleep anymore and don't feel pain. Long-term effects don't matter, as you'll all die from combat, AIDS or lack of women soon anyway. Some fortified settlement might exist as micro-versions of the above dictatorship, but these are likely to be overrun, if not hidden exceptionally well. Humanity would survive on remote islands and valleys where such strict systems are enacted, but that aren't spotted by the wandering mobs. this scenario is a cross-over between modern day civil war-torn Africa and the famous "zombie-apocalypse" (hordes of armed rapists on the brink of amphetamine psychosis that need women or die behave not dissimilar to wandering zombies that starve without feeding; only that the bachelor gangs do not multiply, except by recruiting). In the end, stone-age like conditions and population numbers would be reached, with humanity living in small, isolated groups, each tightly regulated in their behavior by their god-shaman. This include mating only in monthly rituals, killing of deviants and banishment of people over a certain age. As pretext and to memorize the rules (as education will be lost), a very powerful religion will be installed. It retains its power, since anybody acting against the divine rules simply dies (if pork was deadly poisonous, we would all eat kosher, even in the modern age...). If that works for some hundreds of thousands of years, people would in some way genetically adapt to the situation and human history play out almost as normal (don't ask me the precise changes needed, but nature always finds a way, given enough time).

A rather far-fetched, long-term solution might be reached through technology, circumventing the mate-or-die rules. Assuming that at least one human community survives in conditions where science can still be performed, e.g. military-controlled, scientist-populated cold war bunkers etc.

First one needs to find out how the powers that be identify a human. So if we transplant a human brain onto another creature or life-supporting device, does this still count as human? What if we scan all the neuron connection of a person and reproduce them with non-human material (neurons from another species, photonic transistors etc.), will that being still count as human? He should retain his character and so on. A matrix-like utopia....? Ok, I'll stop now, this goes into the very question of what consciousness is made off etc. ..... only as a further comment: these extreme conditions might turbocharge science, because everyone is scared shitless of the alternatives. And because there are no patent-issues, no corporate takeovers, wars etc. And a community of scientists all working round the clock might reach tech-utopia before our society would...

One last side-note:

The environment would be very grateful if the mentioned remote chances of human survival do not work out. Humanity gone, no more pollution and shit. In a few million years, another species might reach our tech level. Hopefully a more peaceful one.

  • $\begingroup$ "Cannot be circumvented through science." ... Hmm... Humanity is defined as... homo sapiens species. If the 'human' can have offspring with us, it's called human. $\endgroup$
    – Malady
    Commented Dec 11, 2015 at 22:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .