|
On July 23 2008 10:23 BottleAbuser wrote:
I completely understand and agree with the sentiment that the US is not a nice place. I don't know others' reasoning behind it, but mine is that it's just not the place I grew up in any more. Surely there are still decent people, but the assholes are more abundant, very much more visible, and generally accepted. I don't know what to say about the state of US politics.
Refer to the list of things that piss me off to see why I have a problem with this attitude.
1. You cannot generalize an entire nation based on your petty and very provincial experiences. What things are like in one place is very different from another. There are 350 million people in America, why do you and the OP think they're mostly "not nice people?" My experiences have been that people are very trusting and kind.
2. Like anywhere, Americans have their share of flaws. But how we are now is no better than how we were before. I LOVE when people talk about how America is nothing like "it used to be". The Civil Rights Movement and the red scare were just 4 decades ago. How historically ignorant can you get? Your sense that people have skewed values doesn't have to do with America, it has to do with the human condition. People are naturally proud and impulsive. That will never change, however many vasectomies you get.
Shallow[Bay]: Haha, yep, I meant what I said. I taste my cum all the time. I like it. I find it easier to cum in my hand and drink it than to use a kleenex. The kleenex approach is wasteful also.
WHAT THE FUCK
|
Woah woah woah, ahrara_ the way you quoted him made it look like I said that 
|
I don't think so really. To do that it'd have to be like:
On July 23 2008 10:55 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:
Haha, yep, I meant what I said. I taste my cum all the time. I like it. I find it easier to cum in my hand and drink it than to use a kleenex. The kleenex approach is wasteful also.
|
I stand equally corrected and frustrated :p
|
lololol im so glad i edited out~ the arguement i made against him in another thread
u just got owned
|
I've sampled living conditions in Illinois, Texas, California, Nevada, and New York over the years. There's definitely been a negative correlation between the quality of public behavior and time, without obvious relation to the area. Obviously, my data set is too small to generalize, but I'm not talking about what you've seen; I'm talking about what I've seen, and how that makes me feel. It's hard to say "I know it looks and feels like society is going down the shitter, but out there, there are good people, so it isn't bad after all."
|
On July 23 2008 11:18 BottleAbuser wrote:
I've sampled living conditions in Illinois, Texas, California, Nevada, and New York over the years. There's definitely been a negative correlation between the quality of public behavior and time, without obvious relation to the area. Obviously, my data set is too small to generalize, but I'm not talking about what you've seen; I'm talking about what I've seen, and how that makes me feel. It's hard to say "I know it looks and feels like society is going down the shitter, but out there, there are good people, so it isn't bad after all."
I was born in Tokyo, Japan. Then I moved to China, where I spent time in Xian and Beijing. After that I spent 6 years in Ruston, Louisiana. Then I moved to New Jersey, across the Hudson from New York. I've lived the last 4 years in California. So I've been around. And verily, I disagree.
Did I mention I've spent at least a month each in Oregon, Texas, and Alaska?
Look dude, the bottom line is, if you want to see it that way, that's how you'll see it. But take a look historically. 40 years ago, black people had to use a seperate restroom from whites. Also, my best friend's grandparents were locked up in internment camps. Give me a break man, keep in mind the big picture.
|
oh and i live in afghanistan atm
(not really)
|
Your action is overwhelmingly drastic to begin with. To base an irreversible solution to reversible politics is to condemn your future to your past. For your sake, i wish that you will not reach a point in your life where you become more conservative with your views on life; not unlike an adult who might regret a teenage tattoo. On that note, i read that you were 24. Do you not think that that is somewhat young to make such a decision?
|
uhm... thanks for sharing, dude, but wtf
at least it sounds like you don't have any psychological side effects of vasectomy, which is good
|
It takes balls to do what you did. (pun intended)
It sounds like you won't regret it, but I would have recommended waiting 5-10 years for anyone else. 24 is a very young age.
Cheers.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
dude thats crazy but if thats what u want then congrats live life with no regrest right! :D
|
A lot of people express doubt in the decision to be sterilized at age 24. I don't have much of an issue with that. But what surprises me is that there is far less criticism or concern towards people who choose to have kids at my age, or younger. To me, THAT is a much bigger deal than sterilization.
The fact that people are seemingly less critical of "breeders" is clear evidence, in my mind, of the strongly pronatal stance in most societies.
|
On July 23 2008 13:07 nA.Inky wrote:
A lot of people express doubt in the decision to be sterilized at age 24. I don't have much of an issue with that. But what surprises me is that there is far less criticism or concern towards people who choose to have kids at my age, or younger. To me, THAT is a much bigger deal than sterilization.
The fact that people are seemingly less critical of "breeders" is clear evidence, in my mind, of the strongly pronatal stance in most societies.
We are made to have babies, and biologically speaking, the best time to have a child, as far as potential health of the child, is essentially as young as possible.
|
Also, just as I have tried to point out that there is a strong pronatal bias, I'd also like to point out that there is a strong genoist stance in many people too, meaning people place a lot of importance on one's children being biological children. I am child-free by choice (this is why I call myself child-free, and not child-less, which would imply a lack), but if I decided I wanted children, adoption would be an admirable route to take. Why make a brand new baby when there are so many children out there that need loving homes?
To clarify something, I was child-free and committed to child-freedom for a long time before I was vasectomized. For me, being that I'm not even in a sexual relationship right now (though hopefully soon, if things go as planned!), the vasectomy is as much a formality as anything else. It is a way to take a principled public stand against overpopulation, pro-natalism, the imperial tendencies of humanism, and genoism.
Of course I am not trying to tell others to share my views - the world would be boring if everyone did share my views. In this thread, my post is mostly here to familiarize people with the option of vasectomy and share my experience and thoughts on it. Up to everyone else how they take it and what they make of it.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 23 2008 13:07 nA.Inky wrote:
A lot of people express doubt in the decision to be sterilized at age 24. I don't have much of an issue with that. But what surprises me is that there is far less criticism or concern towards people who choose to have kids at my age, or younger. To me, THAT is a much bigger deal than sterilization.
The fact that people are seemingly less critical of "breeders" is clear evidence, in my mind, of the strongly pronatal stance in most societies.
A lot of us are critical, but there aren't many "My fetus" threads around here.
And you gotta find a better term than "child freedom." You have to admit that it's loaded terminology.
|
Lemonwalrus, I strongly disagree with your teleological thinking. Of course you will point to science as an unshakeable foundation of truth for your claim, but to me it is just as evident that we are "made" - as you say - to live, and procreation is merely a byproduct of living, not the purpose of living.
Of course I don't think we are "made" for anything. We simply ARE.
On another level - and I'm not arguing from this position, but it is a platform to level a critique against what you said - society already places great limits on our "natural" or "intended" (intended if you insist that we are "made") behavior in the interest of societies needs. Many biological imperatives are superceded by societal imperatives. No? And one could argue that the biological is instinctual, and the societal is intellectual (again, I'm not arguing this). Given that so much emphasis is placed on the intellectual side of humanity - precisely because the intellectual is thought to be intentional, and we like to be masters of our destiny and not slaves to biology - it makes sense then that biological "necessities" like reproduction would be curtailed for intellectual/societal purposes.
|
Jibba, what would you suggest instead of child-freedom? I agree it is loaded, but the alternative term that is often thrown around is "child-less," and that to me is loaded as well.
In my politic thinking, there is no such thing as neutrality. My use of "child-free" is calculated and intentional. I'm OK with someone else identifying as child-less, but I am not child-less, I am child-free.
|
can you still cum? or orgasm? i hope so, right?
|
Raithed, the answers to that are in my OP, which I had asked that everyone read before posting here....
But to answer your question, yep, a vasectomized man is sexually fully functional, except for the part about being able to get a woman pregnant. Erections are the same, sex drive (desire) is the same, sexual response and sensation is the same, and cumming is the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
