|
I'd like to share my thoughts and experience with sterilization via vasectomy. Others are welcome to share their experience with their vasectomy procedure (or, if any women here have had a tubal, you are welcome to share about that too). I'm also happy to talk more about this.
(EDIT: This is intended to be a serious discussion. I know it is a very long post, but please only post if you have read the whole thing and have a genuine question or thought on the matter. Thanks!)
For those who don't know:
A vasectomy is where they cut into your scrotum and sever the two tubes (called vas deferens individually, or vasa deferentia together) that carry sperm from the testicles to the ejaculatory system, then often sealing both ends (testicular and upper) of the vasa deferentia via cauterization or clamps. This prevents sperm from getting into your semen, thus making it impossible for you to impregnate a woman. This procedure does not affect hormones or sexual function (you still produce testosterone, and you can still get hard and you still desire sex just as much as before). You also continue to produce semen, but with no sperm present in the semen. You also still continue to produce sperm, but the sperm cannot join with the semen - sperm are simply reabsorbed by the body. The amount of ejaculate (cum) is not noticeably changed.
Vasectomy is the most effective birth control that exists. The failure rate is about 1 in 1500, meaning 1 in 1500 men will experience a spontaneous reversal - the tubes reconnect themselves, allowing sperm to join with the semen again. The pill, by contrast, is about 1 to 3 out of 100, meaning that in a given year of sexual activity, 1 to 3 women will get pregnant out of 100. Condoms are even worse than the pill (higher failure rate).
Now, one more quick thing to mention: while vasectomies are reversible, the chances of reversal success are only about 60 percent. Furthermore, reversal is VERY expensive, and not covered by most insurance. Consider a vasectomy permanent!
Anyway, I had a vasectomy a month and 2 days ago, and today I had my semen tested and came up "all clear" (my semen is free of sperm).
I was with a very wonderful woman for a year, and she had been sterilized many years prior to our relationship. She and I enjoyed wonderful condom-free sex probably hundreds of times. She got me thinking about overpopulation, and encouraged me to get sterilized if we ever broke up. When I finally broke up with her, I began thinking about sterilization seriously.
Overpopulation is one of the biggest reasons behind my choice to undergo a vasectomy. At a population of 6.6 billion, it is my sincere belief that the Earth is already overpopulated, while the population is projected to reach 9 billion within about 40 years. Half of humanity is expected to face water shortages within 20 years. Meanwhile, "resources" are being depleted, forests are disappearing, there are mass extinctions every year, and many people have inadequate nutrition and live in miserable conditions. It is said that America and other wealthy countries have a low birth rate, and that the population growth problem is really only an issue in undeveloped countries, but this is exactly wrong. It is true that America and other wealthy countries have a low birthrate, but it is also these same wealthy countries that place the largest demands on the environment. For an American to have one child is roughly the equivalent of an African having 18 children.
I'm not preaching to anyone here. This is just my understanding of how things are.
My other reasons for pursuing sterilization are more personal:
I don't particularly like little kids. I can enjoy them in small doses, but they are often annoying, to say the least. I used to take it for granted that I'd have kids at some point, but I've come to realize I don't really want any, and I find myself feeling sorry for people I know who are having children. At the same time, I have many friends who are much older than I and childfree that I look up to greatly. Children require intense responsibility, dedication, and energy.
I don't want to be financially responsible for a child. I like being independent. And independence goes well beyond the financial; I like being free to do what I want to do when I want to do it. I want my life to be about my personal development, possibly shared with a lovely partner or partners. I don't want to worry about how my choices are negatively affecting a child.
I don't find America to be a suitable place to raise a child, with it's celebration of violence and unbridled consumerism and other shallow, foolish values.
I don't want to be tied to a woman I grow to despise or merely grow apart from. I'd hate to put a child through a nasty custody battle.
And, if I am to be honest, one of my great reasons for wanting to have a vasectomy is that I simply enjoy condomless sex. When I was with my sterile girlfriend, we had sex whenever and wherever we wanted, and never had to worry about an unwanted pregnancy, and never had to worry about whether we had condoms on hand. Condoms reduce sexual sensations, occasionally cause allergic reactions in men and women, and are a pain to deal with in general. I love spontaneous, care-free condomless sex. So much!!!! And yes, many of you are fans of the pill, but the pill is not as effective as vasectomy, and carries many bad side effects, such as increased risk of cancer, mood alteration, weight gain, and possible loss of sex drive! Plus, women are human, and they forget to take their pills just like anyone else.
So, I finally decided to have a vasectomy.
It took a long time to work up the nerve to have this done to myself, mostly because research led me to the realization that there is a risk of chronic long term pain called post-vasectomy pain syndrome, PVP. Apparently it affects only a very small percentage of men, and most men have no discomfort after the first few weeks. Still, the risk scared me. Now I realize that the risk is probably over-stated by anti-birth control religious zealots. Still, it is a small risk. But I discovered a website called http://www.vasectomy-information.com/ that is full of personal stories from people who have had this done, and while some of the men who have posted there did have complications and chronic pain, most of the men (by far) had little to no problems. And I met a friend who had it done years before, and was fine. So I signed up.
It cost 860 bucks in cash. Insurance will often cover this procedure, but I do not have insurance.
You go visit the doc and have the procedure done in the same day, usually.
Now, I should quickly state that my research led me to believe that "open-ended" vasectomies carry a lower risk of PVP. An open ended vasectomy is where they leave the testicular ends of the vasa deferentia UNSEALED. The upper ends (that feed into the ejaculatory system) are cauterized or clamped (clamped in my case). This allows sperm to travel from the testicles out into the scrotum, rather than building up in sealed tubes and causing backpressure on the testicles. To be clear, most men don't have problems even with a "closed-ended" vasectomy, but my research led me to believe it would be even less risky if I had an open-ended procedure, so that's what I did.
Also, traditionally vasectomies are done with a scalpal. Two incisions are made in the scrotum to access each vas deferens tube. But it is now increasingly common to have a no-scalpal vasectomy (NSV). This is what I had done. The NSV requires no stitches, heals faster, and tends to have fewer complications (swelling, bruising, etc). My vasectomy was an open-ended NSV.
So I went in, talked to the doc. He was surprisingly cool with me having a vasectomy - often young, single, child-free people like myself (I'm 24) are given a hard time, and sometimes doctors will refuse to perform the surgery. In my case, the doc simply told me that there was a much higher chance I would regret my decision due to my age and child-free status, but when I insisted, he agreed.
I got on the table, he soaped me up, then injected me twice in the scrotum with a local anasthetic. This is by far the most painful part of the procedure, and I can tell you that it was only about as bad as being stung by a bee. He then began his work, and I definitely did not watch what he was doing!
5 minutes later, he was done. *5 minutes*!!!! And I am not lying at all when I say I didn't feel a damn thing. Most men do get some discomfort during the procedure, but not me.
No stitches for my wound, just a bandaid!
Now, you definitely want to have an athetic supporter/jock strap for the recovery. You don't want your nuts bouncing around, as it is very uncomfortable. The jock is your friend for the first week to two weeks.
The first day was the most painful. Once the anasthetic wore off, I had a general achey and uncomfortable feeling in my lower belly and balls. I also felt like things were "pulling" around in there. It wasn't unbearable, just very uncomfortable. Really the only reason it is bad is because you KNOW what happened down there - the sensation itself is quite mild. I just sat around on the couch watching movies. I only took 1 ibuprofin for my whole recovery - that's how mild the whole thing was. Many people like ice on day 1 and 2, but I didn't even do that.
After the first day I could move around carefully without much pain, but definitely need the athletic supporter. I had no swelling, but by day 2 I developed some nice bruising on my nutsack, kind of close to my cock.
I should add that on the first day I had a profound wave of regret over my decision, but it lasted only about an hour, and ever since then I've only felt elation and excitement about it. I had given a lot of thought to my decision before I did it, and I believed in it strongly, and still do.
By day 4 I tried masturbating. Very uncomfortable! Felt like my nuts were getting squished! I was worried. But I could still cum and orgasm itself felt very good. Stopped masturbating for a few more days. The puncture hole had closed up on its own by this point.
Without the athletic support, the balls bounce around and it is very uncomfortable, with very short, sharp bursts of pain in the testicles, like being kicked in the nuts, but disappearing instantly (but if you are walking, your balls bounce a lot, and so you keep getting these rapid twinges of pain - not good). Occasional periods of aching in the balls even when sitting still, but mostly pain-free when still.
By about day 10 I was going without the athletic supporter and doing fine. Only occasional twinges of discomfort. Masturbation no longer causes discomfort - things work normally! Feels so great to cum after so many days off (I tend to masturbate daily). No loss of sensation or anything - things are fine!
I'm an avid bicyclist. By day 13 I had to get back on the bike or I would have gone insane. Going over bumps and large cracks in the road caused discomfort, but otherwise I was fine.
By day 15 or 16, bicycling was no problem and I was doing long rides again, and commuting as usual.
At day 32 or so (today), I feel 99.5 percent normal. I exercise very vigorously every day, masturbate daily, and carry on my usual schedule. Occasionally I'll get a very slight ache in my nuts which I didn't get before, but it often goes away within a minute or two, and is no big deal at all. I expect even the occasional aches to go away completely (they are very rare already). I'm eager for my new girlfriend to get back into town so we can have sex for the first time, and do so condom free.
Sterilization is a serious life decision. I thought about it for over a year before I had it done at age 24 (nearly 25). For me it makes sense. I feel soooooooo glad to not have to worry about having children. I don't want any. And even better is not having to worry about an UNEXPECTED pregnancy. I'd rather have the certainty of sterility than the uncertainty of a possible surprise pregnancy. I feel free. My life is mine to live as I wish, with only as much responsibility as I choose for myself.
I think sterilization is a good decision, given the state of the world today. But it is a personal decision. I'm glad I decided the way I did!
I'll close by saying that for those who care about the environment, there is NOTHING you can do that is better for the environment than not having children. Again, I'm not preaching, just telling it as I see it.
I'm happy to discuss this further. My email is in my tag.
Nick / Inky
 
|
sorry bout your sperm bro
|
honestly, i stopped reading after i read that overpopulation was your main reason to do a vasectomy... =(
|
Seriously dude. wtf?
I don't find America to be a suitable place to raise a child, with it's celebration of violence and unbridled consumerism and other shallow, foolish values.
Welcome to society. Name me a place where the values aren't a little fucked up.
|
crazy ... !!
i hope you don't regret your decision in 10 years or so
|
duh, i envy you
i want unprotected sex AND the option to have kids in case i ever want to
can't have it all i guess 
|
On July 23 2008 09:05 snowbird wrote:duh, i envy you i want unprotected sex AND the option to have kids in case i ever want to can't have it all i guess
Sperm in a cup, have it frozen, get the snip, bust it out of the freezer in the future =o
|
ost-vasectomy pain syndrome, PVP
I read that and was like.. why is he using a protoss vs protoss analogy to talk about pain >.<
|
i wholeheartedly agree with this:
And, if I am to be honest, one of my great reasons for wanting to have a vasectomy is that I simply enjoy condomless sex. When I was with my sterile girlfriend, we had sex whenever and wherever we wanted, and never had to worry about an unwanted pregnancy, and never had to worry about whether we had condoms on hand. Condoms reduce sexual sensations, occasionally cause allergic reactions in men and women, and are a pain to deal with in general. I love spontaneous, care-free condomless sex. So much!!!! And yes, many of you are fans of the pill, but the pill is not as effective as vasectomy, and carries many bad side effects, such as increased risk of cancer, mood alteration, weight gain, and possible loss of sex drive! Plus, women are human, and they forget to take their pills just like anyone else.
but i'm just too afraid to regret it someday. people change.
i even started to like rap music. not long ago i would have said NOW WAY IN HELL!
|
On July 23 2008 09:08 Woyn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2008 09:05 snowbird wrote:duh, i envy you i want unprotected sex AND the option to have kids in case i ever want to can't have it all i guess Sperm in a cup, have it frozen, get the snip, bust it out of the freezer in the future =o
haha, does that actually work?
|
On July 23 2008 09:12 snowbird wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2008 09:08 Woyn wrote:On July 23 2008 09:05 snowbird wrote:duh, i envy you i want unprotected sex AND the option to have kids in case i ever want to can't have it all i guess Sperm in a cup, have it frozen, get the snip, bust it out of the freezer in the future =o haha, does that actually work?
It isn't as 'do it yourself' as he made it out to be, but they do have sperm banks, and that is the basic idea.
|
IMO the smarter solution to overpopulation is to just have a mass genocide of the dumber 50% of the population. Sure we may make a mistake and lose a genius or 2, but we've still got a bunch more to work with. (not serious)
Out of curiosity, can you still extract your sperm and use it for insemination?
|
United States12607 Posts
I have one question: does the lack of sperm change the color or consistency of your semen?
I can't really understand your motivation for doing this because I want to raise a family myself, but I'm thankful you posted about it and I wish you good luck.
One thing I dispute is the 1-3 in 100 stat for birth control. If used correctly, the pill has the same effectiveness as a male vasectomy (see here). Many people screw up their use of the pill, but I don't think we should hold that against the risk of pregnancy (especially because if you missed your time of day or a pill, you'll know it and can abstain). Also, I don't think your 1 in 1500 statistic includes botched vasectomies. In any case, it's borderline misinformation not to list the "ideal case" statistic.
The way I see it, birth control is plenty effective for me to not have a vasectomy.
Cheers!
|
Ahrara: I'm not saying there is a perfect place to raise children, but I do think America is rather unfavorable. This is based on my unconventional values which I do not expect you to share.
Snowbird: Your concerns are very understandable. IT was not an easy decision to make, but I thought it over for a long time, very deeply. I consulted many people, including those with children and those without. I looked at families around me closely. I did a lot of soul searching. I felt nearly - NEARLY - completely sure I would rather not have children, but there was surely lingering doubt... What if I change my mind?
The way I dealt with the doubt is this: people have an overwhelming tendency to justify their actions. What I mean is that in cases like this, people will tend to rationalize what they did and feel it was the best thing, regardless of what they decide. I decided to have faith that I would feel good about it. I truly believe I will continue to be OK with this.
One big concern that I had to overcome - and still have to deal with: many young women are very much set on having children. It's part of the socialization of young women. It's the princess thing. They dream of getting married and having kids. (Not all women, but many, and truly I greatly appreciate and prefer the ones who don't fit this pattern). So being sterile can be somewhat of a handicap in the relationship world.
But I can look at it as a liability, or a screening device. I want women who appreciate my politics and my goals, and ideally share some of these. Plus, I'm not necessarily interested in a life-long partner. I like serial monogamy, and am happy being a Mr. Right Now and enjoying a Ms. Right Now.
|
On July 23 2008 09:13 Lemonwalrus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2008 09:12 snowbird wrote:On July 23 2008 09:08 Woyn wrote:On July 23 2008 09:05 snowbird wrote:duh, i envy you i want unprotected sex AND the option to have kids in case i ever want to can't have it all i guess Sperm in a cup, have it frozen, get the snip, bust it out of the freezer in the future =o haha, does that actually work? It isn't as 'do it yourself' as he made it out to be, but they do have sperm banks, and that is the basic idea.
Sperm Bank FAQ says:
There have been normal pregnancies from sperm stored frozen for 12 years. The efficacy of the freezing is questionable when it has been frozen for over 12 years. Each individual's sperm reacts differently to the freezing process. The result of the thawed test batch can give you some indication of how your sperm reacts to the process.
On July 23 2008 09:15 Slithe wrote:
IMO the smarter solution to overpopulation is to just have a mass genocide of the dumber 50% of the population. Sure we may make a mistake and lose a genius or 2, but we've still got a bunch more to work with. (not serious)
Out of curiosity, can you still extract your sperm and use it for insemination?
Question:
My husband has had a vasectomy (18 months ago) and now we are wanting to have a baby--I am 29, he is 43. We know we could try to have the vasectomy reversed, but what are our other options for having a child that is conceived by both of us? Is there such a thing as aspiration of sperm that can be implanted into me or into one of my eggs, and is there as much of a chance of that being successful as our chances of having the vasectomy reversed? I don't think there is any problem that would prevent me from carrying a child. Thanks.
Answer:
Dear Renee The other option would be to undergo an IVF/ICSI cycle, and have sperm aspirated from the testicles (an area called the epididemis). That obviously involves during an IVF cycle with the costs involved. I would recommend freezing the extra embryos if you go that route. If your husband has a successful vasectomy reversal and you get pregnant on your own, the issue of birth control will need to be discussed (not an issue if you go with IVF). Good luck
|
Good questions guys!
Slithe and Snowbird(and others): You can have your sperm frozen in a sperm bank and use that to fertilize a woman's eggs at a later time. The cost of storage is a few hundred a year, I THINK. I didn't do this, but some men do. It's an option!
jwd241224: Interesting question! I actually tend to tell people about this upfront, and it makes people kind of uncomfortable (and I enjoy that!), but in this case I didn't talk about it. Yes, the consistency of my semen changed a little - it is seemingly a LITTLE more watery than before. Also the taste is slightly more bitter, but that could be due to recent dietary changes (I think this is more likely)
Also your point is worthwhile: ideal use statistics on the pill are closer to vasectomy, TRUE. But ideal use and "typical use" are very different, and since most people are "typical" and not "perfect cases," I chose to only mention the typical use. But yes, I encourage people to research for themselves on all these issues, as I did.
|
my girlfriend's dad did this. She said he was in pain for weeks, but I guess that was a sideffect, huh
anyway, I don't think I'd do this, at least not yet (or anytime soon). Despite my girlfriend's wishes to never have kids, I'm still young and that feeling might change
edit: What's your take on a IUD?
|
5/5. Thanks for sharing. I feel the same way about your reasoning but not sure if I would ever do this.
|
I would not have had such an operation done to me. It is a matter of personal choice I guess, and you've made yours. Good luck!
funny pic (semi-related)
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Sunyveil: Keep in mind I'm not an expert on reproduction and birth-control, I'm just a guy who's done a little research and had a vasectomy done on himself. But, my take on IUD's is that they are generally problematic for the same reasons the pill is - namely that they play around with a woman's hormones and so can effect weight, increase risk of cancer and stroke (I think), effect sexual desire, and in addition I think they can be slightly dangerous to a woman physically, but I'm not sure... Consider this just a very basic response - my recommendation to you is to do more research on your own.
Comabreaded: thank you for your nice reply. It's a tough decision. I recommend a lot of thinking and soul searching and researching and talking with others. Perhaps you should think it over for a few years, or a decade or two. In the meantime, do everything you can not to reproduce unless you are sure you want to.
Let me make a point to anyone reading this thread - this is something that influenced my thinking a lot: I'd rather be sterilized and REGRET my sterilization than to get a woman pregnant and REGRET having a child. Having a kid is just a very, very big deal. Then things aren't just about YOU and what YOU FEEL. It's about the kid, and what the kid NEEDS, and what the kid FEELS. AT least it ought to be - many parents do a very miserable job, and that is reflected in the state of the world today, I think. At least if you get a vasectomy, you only have to be responsible for yourself.
I'm a smart guy, a physically capable guy, and generally careful/cautious. I also am capable of patience. I still don't think I'm cut out to be a parent. I don't think I'd do well at it.
Just to be clear again, though - I'm not pushing anyone to do anything. You gotta think it out for yourself. If it takes you decades to decide, so be it. For me, thinking it over carefully for a year was enough to come to a solid decision.
|
On July 23 2008 09:47 nA.Inky wrote:
Sunyveil: Keep in mind I'm not an expert on reproduction and birth-control, I'm just a guy who's done a little research and had a vasectomy done on himself. But, my take on IUD's is that they are generally problematic for the same reasons the pill is - namely that they play around with a woman's hormones and so can effect weight, increase risk of cancer and stroke (I think), effect sexual desire, and in addition I think they can be slightly dangerous to a woman physically, but I'm not sure... Consider this just a very basic response - my recommendation to you is to do more research on your own.
ok... I just found out there are two types of IUD, hormonal and spermicidal. I'll be sure to have her avoid the hormonal ones, and thanks for the advice
|
Sunyveil: good point, I have heard there are copper IUD's that apparently work by just causing the heads of sperm to fall off, or some such (I'm admittedly ignorant on the matter). Not sure how effective such a device is, or what physical consequences it might have for a woman.
|
The more you know 
|
I just hope you wont regret it, but you seem to have put in a lot of thought about the procedure and its implications. All i can say is that when i was your age children was something very distant to me, i wasnt even sure if i wanted any. Wasnt really thinking about the overpopulation problem to be honest, it was mostly me being very self-centered and enjoying a care-free life looking out for number 1 (me).
Fast forward a few years and now i have my first son sleeping in the next room (2 months old). For me it was just a matter of meeting the right person and maturing to the point that i felt ready to make such a life altering commitment.
Obviously im biased on the subject, and so are you i guess but arent you worried that you will change your mind sometime in the future? Birthcontrol can be a bitch, but im of the opinion that somewhere deep down in our DNA we are hard-coded to reproduce. For some people this obviously never manifests as lots of people live excellent lives without children.
Bah, i'm not really going anywhere with my ramblings. All I wanted to convey was that vasectomy seems too drastic measure to take when being so young, without doing any finger-pointing in the process
|
Karelen, I appreciate your sincere reply. I hope I do not regret my decision also, and at only a month after the procedure, it is too soon to say whether I will or not. You are right, I am young, being only 24 - nearly 25, and typically it is expected that a man who undergoes this procedure will be in a stable relationship and have one or two kids at least. But you are also right that I have done a lot of thinking on the matter, and I am a pretty hard-headed determined fellow as it is, and my reasons for vasectomy are many, as opposed to JUST wanting care-free sex.
Now to you: I hope YOU don't come to regret having a child. Most people will not say they regret having children, but I believe plenty of people do. It's just very difficult to admit that one regrets something as important as having a kid.
I was looking at Newsweek magazine this last weekend on an article about child-free people. According to this article (written by a mother, I'll point out now), people who have children are about 7% less happy than those who remain child-free.
For those who have children or insist on having children, it is just my sincere hope that you love your children deeply, and help them to become responsible, compassionate people.
|
lol
dude do you say that about the USA? try to spend one week in a poor country and you will change your mind. my dream, and all people from sub-developed countries, is to live in the usa... omg...
|
On July 23 2008 09:10 snowbird wrote:i wholeheartedly agree with this: Show nested quote +And, if I am to be honest, one of my great reasons for wanting to have a vasectomy is that I simply enjoy condomless sex. When I was with my sterile girlfriend, we had sex whenever and wherever we wanted, and never had to worry about an unwanted pregnancy, and never had to worry about whether we had condoms on hand. Condoms reduce sexual sensations, occasionally cause allergic reactions in men and women, and are a pain to deal with in general. I love spontaneous, care-free condomless sex. So much!!!! And yes, many of you are fans of the pill, but the pill is not as effective as vasectomy, and carries many bad side effects, such as increased risk of cancer, mood alteration, weight gain, and possible loss of sex drive! Plus, women are human, and they forget to take their pills just like anyone else.
but i'm just too afraid to regret it someday. people change. i even started to like rap music. not long ago i would have said NOW WAY IN HELL!
Still, the pill is like what 98+ per cent greater man. My girlfriend is currently on one of the two different types and we've been having sex like wild apes for a while. She has had no side effects when she is a lot different from other women hormonally and her cravings are the same old, same old. Out of mind, out of sight.
I understand your logic to a certain degree, but some of that stuff you really don't have to worry about.
To me it sounds like you are an over anxious individual. Do you get stressed out easily?
|
On July 23 2008 09:23 nA.Inky wrote:
Yes, the consistency of my semen changed a little - it is seemingly a LITTLE more watery than before. Also the taste is slightly more bitter, but that could be due to recent dietary changes
Wait, what?
|
Also, in most societies around the world, and certainly American societies, there is a general pro-reproduction attitude known as "pro-natalism."
Historically it was important to reproduce, since working the land, for example, was difficult work and required extra hands. Reproduction was a matter of survival.
I don't think there is anything essential about having children. I actually considered this a good bit before my vasectomy. The conclusion I've come to is most seeds do not ever become anything more than a seed, and why should it be so different for humans?
Also, to inject a little controversy before I leave for the night:
I am a self declared member of an organization called VHEMNT (pronounced vehement). This stands for Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. I am happy to lend myself to the cause of human extinction. I see nothing essential in the continuation of the human race, and I see much devastation as a result of humanity (27000 estimated extinctions per year, great environmental degradation). As a post-humanist, I don't consider humans to be more valuable or worthy than any other form of life. I reject the traditional heirarchy of God---Man--(Woman)---Animals---Earth.
The motto of VHEMNT is "live long and die out!" This is what I intend to do, and I'm happy to see others join the cause.
(For clarity, the key word in this movement is VOLUNTARY - it is not a violent movement, and people who have children can join also, just by declaring they will not reproduce any more, and generally favoring non-reproduction).
|
On July 23 2008 10:16 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2008 09:23 nA.Inky wrote:
Yes, the consistency of my semen changed a little - it is seemingly a LITTLE more watery than before. Also the taste is slightly more bitter, but that could be due to recent dietary changes Wait, what?
Well, you wouldn't want to waste it, that would be bad for the environment.
|
On July 23 2008 10:15 Showtime! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2008 09:10 snowbird wrote:i wholeheartedly agree with this: And, if I am to be honest, one of my great reasons for wanting to have a vasectomy is that I simply enjoy condomless sex. When I was with my sterile girlfriend, we had sex whenever and wherever we wanted, and never had to worry about an unwanted pregnancy, and never had to worry about whether we had condoms on hand. Condoms reduce sexual sensations, occasionally cause allergic reactions in men and women, and are a pain to deal with in general. I love spontaneous, care-free condomless sex. So much!!!! And yes, many of you are fans of the pill, but the pill is not as effective as vasectomy, and carries many bad side effects, such as increased risk of cancer, mood alteration, weight gain, and possible loss of sex drive! Plus, women are human, and they forget to take their pills just like anyone else.
but i'm just too afraid to regret it someday. people change. i even started to like rap music. not long ago i would have said NOW WAY IN HELL! Still, the pill is like what 98+ per cent greater man. My girlfriend is currently on one of the two different types and we've been having sex like wild apes for a while. I understand your logic to a certain degree, but some of that stuff you really don't have to worry about. To me it sounds like you are an over anxious individual. Do you get stressed out easily?
it's not about being anxious, it's just bothersome and something you have to take care of
"crap, i forgot to take the pill yesterday" "crap, no more condoms left"
|
Showtime: I am an unconventional person, yes... And I do crave certainty and closure on this issue. I don't consider myself particularly anxious, though, no. I just have strong convictions.
The pill can work well for some people. Though keep in mind, the longer a woman is on it, the more succeptible she is to health problems. If I weren't vasectomized, I'd be back to relying on condoms, most likely. I'm glad to not have to even think about any of this stuff now.
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.
I don't understand the squeamishness... Most men see no problem cumming in their girlfriend's mouth and seeing them drink it. It's kind of erotic. Why should I expect a woman to do something I wouldn't do? And there is nothing dirty or nasty about cum. Mine tastes fine, and it is healthy. I'm comfortable with my body.
|
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.
Maybe there isn't really a better place in the world, but that's really a bleak thought.
I like to think that it would be more responsible to wait for (or even better, work towards) a better place and time to raise kids.
|
Thanks for the good posts you guys! I have to go for tonight. I plan to check back tomorrow. Otherwise people are welcome to email me if they have serious thoughts/questions.
|
On July 23 2008 09:10 snowbird wrote:i wholeheartedly agree with this: Show nested quote +And, if I am to be honest, one of my great reasons for wanting to have a vasectomy is that I simply enjoy condomless sex. When I was with my sterile girlfriend, we had sex whenever and wherever we wanted, and never had to worry about an unwanted pregnancy, and never had to worry about whether we had condoms on hand. Condoms reduce sexual sensations, occasionally cause allergic reactions in men and women, and are a pain to deal with in general. I love spontaneous, care-free condomless sex. So much!!!! And yes, many of you are fans of the pill, but the pill is not as effective as vasectomy, and carries many bad side effects, such as increased risk of cancer, mood alteration, weight gain, and possible loss of sex drive! Plus, women are human, and they forget to take their pills just like anyone else.
but i'm just too afraid to regret it someday. people change.
i even started to like rap music. not long ago i would have said NOW WAY IN HELL!
OMFG NO WAY IN HELL RAP DIED WITH TUPAC
|
On July 23 2008 09:41 minus_human wrote:I would not have had such an operation done to me. It is a matter of personal choice I guess, and you've made yours. Good luck! funny pic (semi-related) + Show Spoiler +
hahahaha half vampire half idiot
|
really interesting blog. I hope you made the right decision nA.InKy!
|
haha thats a fair point Inky. And yeah, a lot of people shouldnt have children.
Im not sure that i agree with you on the part of people regret having children but dont verbalize it out of fear for social stigma. But i cant really speak for anyone else but me.
|
holy shit u are fucked up and a fag if u drink your own semen
|
United States22883 Posts
My kids will beat up your kids.
Seriously though, unless you visited a sperm bank ahead of time, I think you've put all your eggs in one basket, so to speak. Who knows if 35 year old Nick has the same politics as 25 year old Nick, or even if overcrowding is an issue at that point. It's always nice to leave your options open, and in today's medical world there's a bevy of options to prevent pregnancy without a vasectomy.
I was looking at Newsweek magazine this last weekend on an article about child-free people. According to this article (written by a mother, I'll point out now), people who have children are about 7% less happy than those who remain child-free. Of course people in the process of raising children are likely to be less happy and more stressed out, but that's not the entire picture. It would be like asking about your comfort level 2 days after your vasectomy compared to a person who hadn't had one.
|
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.
|
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 States24679 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.
|
United States22883 Posts
Yeah. The terminology thing is somewhat petty, but I expect Inky to be a bit more fair than that. I'm supposed to be the judgmental one in these threads.
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.
|
BottleAbuser has it. My choice is a reflection of my values, which I do not expect, or even necessarily want, everyone else to share. I'm happy to talk about my values, and that's partly why I made this thread. I think it's good for all of us to be exposed to ideas and then to think critically and make up our own minds.
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.
|
United States22883 Posts
The problem with using 'free' is that you're immediately equating 'children' to 'drugs.' 'Drug-free' is a completely objective term (aside from the subjective classification of drugs) while 'child-free' injects your political view into an otherwise objective word. And again, the people that use that term are former drug users, not people who have never tried them.
I know you know you want it now. I'm just saying that you don't know what future Inky wants right now.
|
Jibba, many people who have not used drugs identify as drug-free.
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.
|
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.
|
True Jibba, but run-away population growth has also created great suffering for humans and for other life. Many of the looming environmental and political disasters would be lessened or averted if there were fewer people. My political stand on overpopulation has little to do with "sounding cool" and much to do with trying to minimize suffering.
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.
|
United States22883 Posts
Well, given the way our brains work, I think suffering and happiness are relative terms much like poverty. I'm not even disputing your political stance, however. I don't wish to partake in it but I think it's pretty responsible and I wish more people agreed with you because there are too many unsuitable parents.
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.
|
All understandable Jibba. I respect your playing devil's advocate. I do it too, with myself (actually far more than I think most people would ever guess) and with others. One reason I've never banned you from my threads (though I do recall having asked you to leave in one, heh heh), despite some people asking me to, is that I am totally open to criticism, heartfelt or not.
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.)
|
interesting
|
This country is partly sick because of people like you.
I don't judge you. I pity you. But one thing warms me up.
You wont reproduce.
|
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.
|
Hahaha BottleAbuser. You GG'd him.
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
I think it's again a problem of terminology. "Purpose" implies a coordinator, trying to achieve a final state.
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.
|
United States22883 Posts
The time and energy required for sex are mostly due to cultural influences, not the act itself. If you were a male asshole, you could reproduce by only 30 seconds of your own work (the first time.) I'm sure there's some many other biological issues, like the shift to standing on two legs or no longer going into 'heat' like many mammals do.
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.
|
but my birth control is shooting the load on her face!
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/shouldnt_have_kids.jpg)
