|
I think I expressed myself poorly.
I, like you, don't buy into the fact that we are 'made' for anything in particular, insofar as I don't believe anyone has a 'purpose' beyond finding food/shelter and avoiding death at (almost) all cost.
However, people haven't been begrudgingly procreating over all of these eons. It is part of existing, you are born with an instinctual drive to contribute your genes to a new generation. Now, from your story, it is obvious that you can, for lack of a better term, 'train' yourself to ignore this or go against it fundamentally, but that, as you alluded to, is an intellectual decision that a group of individuals have made. The species, or at least the vast majority, do not follow suit, and still at their core feel compelled to have children.
That being said, it is plainly evident that the best time, biologically speaking, to have a child is when you are young.
Also, most groups of intellectuals are working towards a future goal that would be wasted if there was not reproduction. (Space exploration, saving the environment for future humans, things like that.) So although they obviously put their intellectual endeavors above biology (they most likely wouldn't have a child until they were out of college or something like that), they still realize that our biological 'necessities' are still 'necessities' if their goal is to be realized.
|
After your clarification, I don't disagree with what you are saying here, Lemonwalrus, but I'm not sure what your point is exactly.
I'll say a few things that may or may not really connect with what you are saying.
Surely people are driven to procreate... But I disagree with thinking that posits a natural and unnatural state of being. To me there is no nature. There is no artificiality.
So we have the drive to procreate. Good. But also, looking around, we see a strong drive to NOT procreate. Or put it this way, many people want very much to have sex (I among them) but do not want the biological consequences (reproduction). To me there is nothing "unnatural" (I cannot fathom what unnatural could be) about not wanting to reproduce.
I say this by way of trying to pick apart the idea that we are "made" (I realize you clarified your statement, so I'm not putting these words into your mouth, just stating a commonly held point of view) to procreate (because procreation is natural, and nature is good), and that not procreating is somehow bad because it resists nature.
I hate to make such a biological determinist argument, but one could say that somewhere, coded into my DNA, is the will to NOT reproduce.
None of this is directed at you LemonWalrus, because I'm not really sure what your point is.
|
omg crazy man. sorry that you will never experence the joys of having you own kids and bringing them up... well guess you could adopt.
|
Whatever point I had I have lost at this moment. (I've been awake for a really long time)
I'm sure I had a point, and it may have been a good one, but hopefully when I wake up I will remember what exactly it was and clarify. Right now my reading comprehension is so low that I can't even decipher what I myself wrote not to long ago. So...yeah...to be continued I guess. 
|
I hear ya, Lemon - I'm gonna hit the hay myself. Peace dude.
Leviathan - I am GLAD I'll almost certainly never experience the "joys" of having kids. Very glad. (I say almost certainly never because there is still a small chance my vasa deferentia will reconnect and then allow me to impregnate someone, but the odds are very small), If I thought I was missing out on such a great thing, I probably wouldn't have had the surgery.  Heh, just cause I don't have kids doesn't mean I haven't been around kids. My friends have kids. I feel sorry for them! When I am around kids, I am thankful they aren't mine. And when I see overweight, worn out, spiritually broken family people (OK, this might be an exaggeration and a lot of interpretation, but still) I am glad not to be in their shoes.
I can't express the relief and happiness I have regarding my decision! I'm not saying everyone should be like me, but for me, this is a very good thing to have had done.
|
I once saw a bumper sticker that read "Drive carefully, 90% of people are caused by accidents."
You seem like an intelligent person, and someone strongly committed to adhering to your personal morality. And so, ironically, you'd probably make a great parent. But like so many other intelligent and/or well off individuals, you've considered the pros and cons of child-bearing and decided it wasn't for you. Meanwhile, JoeBob the alcoholic wife-puncher is off knocking up yet another bar skank and some poor Ethiopian woman is spawning an army of Starvin' Marvins. And so the people in this world least-equipped - either emotionally or materially - to provide for children are the ones having most of them.
I'm not attacking you; remaining childless is certainly your right and I don't believe anyone has a "duty" to raise x number of kids. Just lamenting this kind of reverse evolution that seems to be occurring in our modern world.
|
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.
I would just like to point out that its the people who have kids who eventually control society. All the antinatal people don't have kids, die, and disappear.
|
well that was a very interesting read. good info. in case i ever want to get a vasectomy.
i would also like to add that i always enjoy reading your posts inky. they are always well thought out, written, enlightening on the subject, and generally enjoyable to read =).
|
I was understanding your point until you spoke about feeling pity for adults having children and looking up to others who don't. However, then you stated that it takes great responsibility, dedication and energy. I also don't buy your arguement about overpopulation. If you use a condom and your safe, you aren't going to have a child, you don't need to cut up your dick to achieve this.
|
United States24768 Posts
On July 23 2008 15:33 Salv wrote:
I was understanding your point until you spoke about feeling pity for adults having children and looking up to others who don't. However, then you stated that it takes great responsibility, dedication and energy. I also don't buy your arguement about overpopulation. If you use a condom and your safe, you aren't going to have a child, you don't need to cut up your dick to achieve this.
I think for some people it's better for them to get a procedure than rely on their ability to make the right choices in the moment. How many people that applies to, I'm not sure.
|
"Cutting up your dick" is not the end of the world, apparently, and to some is less of a hassle than finding and using a condom every time he has sex.
But of course it's more fun to pretend everyone sees things the way you do.
|
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
You have 20 more ejaculations before all the sperm leaves your body.
Health ED  So SEX NOW! Maybe sperm lasts longer in your body then out
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 23 2008 13:24 nA.Inky wrote:
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.
You're sterile.
'free' implies enslavement, as if it were not a choice.
|
Thank you Ulszz, very much. I write for a lot of reasons, but it is especially folks like you, who take the time to read with an open mind, that I write things like this for. I appreciate it.
Fight_or_Flight says "I would just like to point out that its the people who have kids who eventually control society. All the antinatal people don't have kids, die, and disappear."
An interesting comment. First of all, it seemingly presupposes that I want to control society. I do indeed have strong political and philosophical views, but part of my politics is giving people space to choose for themselves. I don't want to control society. Frankly, I'm not terribly interested in society on any macro level.
Secondly, your comment seems to imply that death and disappearance are bad things. I take death to be a part of life, and I have no issue with my genes dying out with me. In fact, because I am an only child, and no one else in my family has reproduced except for my Mom, my entire family will die wiht me. That is fine. Immortality is not a goal, and transience is the only permanent feature of this world. Humanity itself will end someday, and that's fine - beautiful even.
And to Mad Italian, thanks for your kind comments. I agree it is ironic that people who choose not to reproduce typically do so after much more heavy thinking and soul searching than those who do reproduce. Where I live, it is also apparent that many of the parents are poorly educated, often with drug problems, and generally probably not the best parents. Still, I don't particularly think I am cut out to be a parent, even with more education, no drug problems, a mind geared towards some degree of social responsibility, etc. Furthermore, I don't think "the good guys" (to be simplistic to the point of sickness) have a responsibility to reproduce, and I don't think it's the end of the world if only the "most pathetic" people reproduce. I'm not particularly worried about that - I trust things will work out, even if they work out very badly (this probably doesn't make sense to most people).
Something else to consider, Mad Italian, people who choose not to have children of their own can still make excellent role models to children. In fact, child-free people can be very useful to society in general. Our energies are freed up to invest in whatever cause we like. We don't have to worry as much about taking care of our own children, so we have a little more space and energy and time to consider how we might take care of the world, if we should decide to do so.
And I'd like to address BottleAbuser, and particularly those critical of BottleAbuser. BottleAbuser has essentially seconded my comment that America, in my view, is not a great place to raise children. Again, to be clear, this reflects my own value system, a value system I do not expect others to share. But to clarify what I meant when I said I don't find America particularly favorable... I don't find America to be a particularly oppressive or dangerous place, exactly, so those who interpreted our remarks that way are getting the wrong idea. To me the problem with America is that its values are oriented away from the intellectual and spiritual (and no, I don't mean spiritual in a religious sense) towards consumerism and general shallowness. Furthermore, we see violence celebrated in the media, and constantly carried out by the empire, while nudity and sexuality are condemned as filthy.
I'm being very broad and general, but these trends make me think that I would have a hard time raising children here. I would want to raise a kid who thinks beyond the next video game console or automobile, who live for reasons beyond prostituting themselves for mortgage payments and car payments, who celebrate sexuality and love and reject violence and the rat race. This is difficult.
And again, I expect no one to share my values.
|
Jibba, people can and do choose to have children, but as many wind up having children by accident, and in that case, the situation can (not that it necessarily will) very much feel like enslavement. Now that I don't have to worry about that, I do very much feel free - free from worry, free from responsibility for a child, etc.
|
United States22883 Posts
Fine, then I'm living my life free from death at the moment. It makes about as much sense.
|
I can't believe you actually did this. You seem very happy with your decision which I guess is all that matters in the end. I felt slightly queasy reading through your blog and replies but I very nearly puked on the following line. Could you hide it in around 16 spoiler tags next time? Thanks
On July 23 2008 10:23 nA.Inky 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.
|
Difference: death is inevitable, children are not.
My parents decided to have another child after me. He's nearing 2 years old now. Not an "oops" baby. My mom's having a hard time - raising a child is hard. Apparently very rewarding, as well, but though she won't say she regrets the decision, she does make me think she'd seriously reconsider if she had the chance. She was almost in tears yesterday when it turned out that he'd be OK with going to a day care center yesterday for a few hours each day - freedom at last!
(Hope I didn't make it sound like she doesn't love and care for him deeply. But she's constantly sleep depreived and can never find time to exercise, or read books, or do whatever it is that she likes doing in her spare time - she hasn't had any for 2 years.)
Not to sound bitter or anything (I'm not), but he takes big chunks of time out of my day too. My consolation is that I'm never going to have to deal with the full-fledged version unless I choose to (or fuck up pretty bad), and I probably won't choose to.
|
United States22883 Posts
That's not the difference. Healthy people don't talk about themselves as cancer free. People who had cancer talk about themselves as cancer free.
Just call a spade a spade. He's sterile, good or bad. My criticism is that there are many non-permanent ways to prevent pregnancy, and most are inexpensive.
|
So your problem is with the terminology and decision-making.
I don't worry about the terminology too much, as I like to think of myself as immune to marketing-speech. I know I'm not, but... oh well.
As for the decision making, it's been made pretty clear that he sees advantages in sterilization and few disadvantages. Given what we have about his value system, it's also pretty clear that this decision benefits Inky. Unless you assert that his values are distorted or incorrect. I wouldn't venture there unless I could elucidate and justify some sort of objective system for judging value systems. And if I could, I would be going for the Nobel Prize, not posting in some gaming forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
