EPTI do question the decision, however. Assuming he's not a man slut and wants to be with a woman who doesn't want kids either, she could get an effective and safe IUD for extremely cheap. I think you should be pretty cautious when making any life changing decisions and leave your options open as much as you possibly can. Granted he can still adopt and other things, but I still think there were more sensible solutions. Not to mention his cum would taste a whole lot better.
My Vasectomy (sterilization) - Page 5
| Blogs > nA.Inky |
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
I do question the decision, however. Assuming he's not a man slut and wants to be with a woman who doesn't want kids either, she could get an effective and safe IUD for extremely cheap. I think you should be pretty cautious when making any life changing decisions and leave your options open as much as you possibly can. Granted he can still adopt and other things, but I still think there were more sensible solutions. Not to mention his cum would taste a whole lot better. | ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
Anyhow, Jibba, there are other birthcontrol options out there, true. But I KNOW I don't want children - for many reasons, not just that I like condomfree sex (I'm definitely not a man-whore - I'm not particularly skilled at "getting" women), and not just because I think overpopulation is perhaps the greatest problem facing the world today. Something to consider: having gone this route, I don't have to depend on a woman to take care of birthcontrol. I don't have to trust a woman to use birthcontrol. I don't have to worry about my girlfriend forgetting to take her pill. I don't have to worry that birthcontrol is affecting my partner's health. I don't have to bother with pesky condoms (unless I am with someone I don't know well, and want to protect myself from STD's). I've taken care of it all myself, permanently. Also, having sterilized myself, I can take a strong political stand on issues of child-freedom and overpopulation. Otherwise, people could say "oh, you're young, you'll change your mind and have kids." Now people have to take my position seriously, whether they think it is disgusting, foolish, or whatever. I am firmly child-free - there is no undoing it now. I am glad to represent a slice of society that chooses to live an unconventional kind of life, and I am glad to be able to speak strongly on overpopulation issues. Some of these things - perhaps all - do not appeal to other people. That's fine. Some of these things will appeal greatly to other people. That's fine too. The main thing is I am embodying my politics and my philosophy, rather than merely theorizing as so many people are content to do (don't take me wrong, theory has its place, and I immerse myself in it myself). I feel good about it. I also do have a mental/spiritual experience of freedom, however absurd that may sound to you, Jibba. It's real to me. It's a weight off my chest. I've bought peace of mind for myself. So I feel good about it. If you don't like the idea of sterilization, don't have yourself sterilized. On the other hand, if you have some kids and decide you've had enough, the option is there for you, and it is about the most full-proof way to take care of things. More on terminology, Jibba, does it bother you when people declare themselves "drug-free?" Or does it bother you when products claim to be "sugar-free?" Do you prefer "drug-less?" "Sugar-less?" It would be consistent with your critique here if this is your stance. Either way, I disagree with you on this issue, but respect your opinion. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
I know you know you want it now. I'm just saying that you don't know what future Inky wants right now. | ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
You are right, I don't know what I'll want in the future. No one does. I am curious if you would speak to new parents in the same way you speak to me. Would you criticize them for their decision (or accident, as is just as often the case) on the grounds that they may wish later that they had not had children? Maybe you are "objective" enough to do this, but I think in general people will tend to be more critical of folks like me who choose to be child-free than they are of people who choose to have children. This reflects the pronatalism of society. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On July 24 2008 13:49 nA.Inky wrote: Would you criticize them for their decision (or accident, as is just as often the case) on the grounds that they may wish later that they had not had children? Maybe you are "objective" enough to do this, but I think in general people will tend to be more critical of folks like me who choose to be child-free than they are of people who choose to have children. This reflects the pronatalism of society. Fair enough, but I can give you one irrefutable reason why society is pronatalism. Procreation has always created more life than it's killed.  | ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
While I am admittedly part of the voluntary human extinction movement, as previously stated, even I can see where procreation can be a good and necessary thing. But mindless procreation is not wise, and we will all face the consequences of it. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
I'm just trying to throw "what-ifs" to make you question getting your balls snipped, like what if after the next World War only you and Megan Fox are left alive and you need to procreate. Then you'd be pretty un-fucked. And if my partner and I were to take that route, I'm almost positive the IUD would be the route we'd take and I'd make up for it in some other way. | ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
Still, you ought to consider that I've made an irreversible decision. I don't mind you questioning me on it, but the point is totally moot now. I'm poor. I can't afford a reversal, and a reversal wouldn't likely succeed anyway (the odds certainly aren't good enough to justify spending 10+ grand on it). So I'm curious what your purpose is. If your criticism is successful, it would only succeed in making me feel bad, whereas now I feel good. Again, I don't mind at all, and I feel very good about my decision, but I am just saying that this is kind of the case of locking the door after the stuff has already been "took". But for others to read, it's good that you are posting your thoughts. You may talk someone out of the path I've chosen, and if that means they are happier people for it, then so much the better. Also, about the end of the world "what if you are the last man" comment you made, I've already stated that I'm happy to see the human race end - it'll happen sooner or later anyway. I also don't think sex is for procreation (a shaky statement, one rooted in personal faith on my part). In other words, if it were just me and a sexy woman that were left of the human race, I'd still totally fuck her if she were willing to be with me. Happily. (I do get the humor of your "you'd be totally un-fucked" comment. I like it.) | ||
|
geometryb
United States1249 Posts
 | ||
|
iakNab
131 Posts
I don't judge you. I pity you. But one thing warms me up. You wont reproduce. | ||
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
This country is mostly sick because of people like iakNab. I judge you, and you are unworthy. I don't pity you, any more than you pity your excrement before it is sent off through the sewers. It chills me that you may find someone willing to procreate with you. | ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
| ||
|
decafchicken
United States20090 Posts
On July 24 2008 14:21 nA.Inky wrote: Also, about the end of the world "what if you are the last man" comment you made, I've already stated that I'm happy to see the human race end - it'll happen sooner or later anyway. *mental note to NOT pick you to be on the Near-Earth Object Interception and Deflection committee* and lol @ sex not being for procreation. | ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
In my view, which is not necessarily any more sound than the teleological one, we see because we have eyes - we didn't develop eyes so we could see. And likewise, we reproduce because we have sex, we don't have sex to reproduce. We don't live to survive, we survive to live. Life is its own point. Sex is its own point. As to your joke directed at my "I don't care if humanity is wiped out" stance, I like it. You are right | ||
|
iakNab
131 Posts
On July 24 2008 16:08 BottleAbuser wrote: Warning: fact-free post. This country is mostly sick because of people like iakNab. I judge you, and you are unworthy. I don't pity you, any more than you pity your excrement before it is sent off through the sewers. It chills me that you may find someone willing to procreate with you. totally smart coming from such a rascal. sorry but I'm not going to shit all over you just because you're dumb. Evolution will prove my point. On July 24 2008 17:20 nA.Inky wrote: DecafChicken - in all seriousness, it never stops amazing me that people take sex to be for procreation. Indeed, many such people take the meaning of life to be survival and reproduction. As Nietzsche points out, this is sloppy teleological thinking. In my view, which is not necessarily any more sound than the teleological one, we see because we have eyes - we didn't develop eyes so we could see. And likewise, we reproduce because we have sex, we don't have sex to reproduce. We don't live to survive, we survive to live. Life is its own point. Sex is its own point. As to your joke directed at my "I don't care if humanity is wiped out" stance, I like it. You are right In fact, we developed eyes so we could see. We had to see, that's why we have eyes. It doesn't matter, whats your point of view, this is a fucking fact. When organism moved away from light, he lost his ability to see, he still had eyes. Therefore, it has eyes but it can't see. I can go all day, i just don't find a lot of joy in bashing 2 uneducated jocks. It is what it is, I'm convinced it's great that you sterilized yourself, I wish Bottleabuser did it too. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On July 24 2008 17:20 nA.Inky wrote: DecafChicken - in all seriousness, it never stops amazing me that people take sex to be for procreation. Indeed, many such people take the meaning of life to be survival and reproduction. As Nietzsche points out, this is sloppy teleological thinking. In my view, which is not necessarily any more sound than the teleological one, we see because we have eyes - we didn't develop eyes so we could see. And likewise, we reproduce because we have sex, we don't have sex to reproduce. We don't live to survive, we survive to live. Life is its own point. Sex is its own point. As to your joke directed at my "I don't care if humanity is wiped out" stance, I like it. You are right While that sounds good in your personal 21st century life experience perspective, evolutionary biology kicks your ass in this debate. We developed eyes to survive and sex feels good because if there were more nerves on our elbows than our reproductive organs, we would die out very quickly, and the base level goal for all organisms is to survive. | ||
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
Natural selection is a process. It shapes evolution. This doesn't mean that natural selection has a purpose. I certainly don't see it that way. "We" didn't develop anything for anything. It just happened to be that the organisms with certain expressed mutations had slightly better chances to pass on their genes. (Yeah, I completely buy into the Selfish Gene interpretation of macroevolution.) An attribute common to all life today appears to be to try to survive. This does not make it an inherent goal for all organisms - to deduce so would be to ignore the idea that most life without that goal would have died out by now, and simply would not be seen today, not that it never did and will exist. We thought humans were special because we are the only species that has sex when it has very little chance of resulting in pregnancy. It turns out we aren't the only ones (see: dolphins). Strange, because sex is very costly - it takes time and energy to find a partner and to engage in the act. Maybe sex isn't just for recreating, although it probably is the major function. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
But the arousal of sex is caused by a very successful gene, that has provided excellent incentive for us to replicate it. It's the same as with microbes. The goal for a microbe is to reproduce and for its species (or whatever the hell you call the subset of microbes) to survive, not to make us sick, but making us sick is a very useful tool for their survival. You're correct that on an individual level our genes don't have a purpose and act blindly, but the grand scheme of natural selection is continued survival. | ||
|
MarklarMarklar
Fiji1823 Posts
works 100 out of 100 just kidding i use a condom ALWAYS, unless its with someone i know pretty well and is on Da Pill | ||
| ||
