Would the human population increase without ''natural sexual discouragement''?

I read a theory once which stated that the natural pain, sickness and general discomfort that humans can experience during sex, pregnancy, and childbirth help control the human population by discouraging uncontrolled breeding.

If this is true, here is the synopsis of my question.

I have been working on an alternate human species which experiences natural earlier sexual development, lacks a menstrual cycle and experiences little to no physical pain, sickness or discomfort from sex, pregnancy, and childbirth.

To expand upon these points:

These alternate humans can engage in safe and prolific breeding before the age of 10. They can have over 6 children in a single pregnancy with the largest recorded birth comprising of 11 children all who lived past infancy. The birth rate for these alternate humans is largely the same as real humans.

These humans are completely immune to any and all sexually transmitted diseases. They had no concept of STD's until they accidentally discovered them in animals.

These humans have malleable sexual organs. I think this would create an intended lack of sexual pain which may encourage higher rates of casual sex.

As mentioned, these humans have little to no pain, sickness or discomfort caused by pregnancy and childbirth. I'm not sure how exactly this would work on a biological level but pregnant women of this alternate human species retain their agility during all stages of pregnancy and can easily support the unborn baby weight. They also have a snake jaw like pelvis which contributes to the painless childbirths.

This alternate human species also has a stronger sex drive which manifests at a young age. In a nutshell, young individuals of this alternate human species are natural nymphomaniacs and may breed with individuals that they have a weak connection or relation too.

Lastly, this alternate human species lives in a culture that has fully embraced its sexuality. It doesn't attempt to regulate peoples sexual habits or preferences unless said habits or preferences invoke inherent, undisputed and auomatic harm onto another person.

Would an alternate human species with such attributes have a significantly greater population?

I expect that food and resources would still pose an eternal problem to this alternate human species. If these sexual attributes remove population inhibitors, I think that disease and resources would be the sole remaining natural inhibitors.

I can answer any questions that someone may have about this topic if it helps. I'm also open to any critiques given that they point out a flaw in this alternate human design that should or can be rectified to achieve the intended goal rather than simply questioning why I needed to write any of this.

posted about 4 years ago

JordanTheCynic‭

1 reputation 10 0 0 0