We are hardwired for sex and reproduction. It's a simple argument. Assume there's a genetic trait, "horny" (pardon the language). Some have it, some don't. Genes that cause horniness are selected for, those that do not, against. Nature selects for the horny allele every time. Reproduction is deeply intertwined with selection. Look no further than the duck penis [https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Photograph-of-the-425-cm...] as an example, one of many.

As women are rationally aware especially at this politically polarized and contested time - acting on such instincts have consequences! Pregnancy! That part is not generally seen as much fun by many women.

How I would do it - as far back as the 1880s, ovaries were removed. C-section, as the name tells us, goes back to Caesar. All very old surgeries. So women could have the prescribed number of kids they wished for, particularly if a c-section, and then be sterilized. Now they can freely have sex. Now women have 2,3 kids, not 15,20 at least among the higher classes.

Now move onto the 1960s - the pill. Now you don't even need a surgery and it's reversible - just stop taking the pill.

Now the behaviorial instinct to have sex (side effect: reproduction) has been satiated without the downside. Women are very happy. So now we are simply going through a human genetic bottleneck. There exist alleles instead of "horny" it is "really wants a baby" - now this gene is selected for.

So to summarize the argument: - breeding has been dialed down for over 100 years. satisfying sex drive without pregnancy, in many different ways over time - life always finds a way so in the future, perhaps a few generations, procreative genes will be favored versus horny genes.