[besson3c]

Sexuality can be extremely simple and extremely complex at the same time. We explore all sorts of creative and unusual aspects of sexuality constantly, discovering new things that turn us on, etc. It seems like we haven't fully "figured out" sexuality and what makes it tick with everybody.

Does sexuality evolve over time? Are our appetites and complexities no different than they were a thousand years ago?

I would think that if you do think that sexuality evolves, perhaps our base instincts to procreate are a part of this evolution? After all, we don't really need more people on this planet like we did in generations past. Do you think that our growing awareness and acceptance of homosexuality is a part of this evolution? Do you think that in a thousand years there will be more or less homosexuality?

I'd like to think that over time not only will homosexuality grow, but asexuality will too. Think of all of the problems associated with our urges (usually male) to have intercourse with somebody, and how interesting (and I'd say wonderful) life would be if we were in far greater control of all of this? If we don't have some sort of base instinct to have sex and it was just sort of just something fun to do or even just a hobby, it would seem logical that that "must procreate, absolute imperative" part of our brains would be muted, and therefore it wouldn't really matter who we loved.

I don't think animals can love back the way that another human could, but there is no particular reason why in this world you wouldn't find relationships with people of much different ages, random genders, etc., right? Sexual love between a parent and a child would be super weird, but who knows... A thousand years is a long time.

[shifuimam]

I don't think that the complexity of human sexuality has necessarily evolved - it's that society has evolved (and devolved) in how it perceives and deals with sexuality.

In many ways modern society (Western, at least) is still very Victorian in its views of sexuality. It wasn't always like that, of course, and it won't always be like that. I think that the Catholic and Christian influence of Western society has only just started to diminish the past 75 years or so - people are finally openly accepting that relationships and sexuality don't irrevocably have to be driven by the biological need to procreate. Married couples who choose to remain childfree are far less stigmatized today than they were even 20 years ago.

I think that the biggest reason why the conservative religious (and non-religious, as we've seen in Russia, which is officially a secular country) groups are so intent on blocking what they perceive as new and immoral changes to sexual expression is that these changes will introduce the idea of moral freedom to their children. One of the fundamental build blocks of conservative thought is that moral freedom is only achieved through moral strictures. Once this idea is successfully challenged, you quickly lose followers.

Hell, pederasty used to be a completely legitimate form of sexuality in Roman culture. Times change.

[besson3c]

Interesting comments Shif.

I was coming at my post from a biological perspective, and it seems you more from a religious/moral/social perspective. Do you think there is or could be some sort of genetic/biological component to sexuality, other than the idea of being born gay which I'm assuming you are on board with?

[shifuimam]

There's a biological drive to procreate. However, I don't personally believe that it's an unavoidable instinctual need. In fact, I think that this is one of the things that directly separates the human race from other species on Earth.

I started insisting I didn't want children when I was about nine years old. Ever since then, I have been told repeatedly by both men and women of varying backgrounds, ages, and beliefs that I should just "wait and see". I'm going to be 30 next year, and I still have absolutely no desire, physiologically or psychologically, to procreate. So, from my own perspective as a woman who actively and definitely doesn't want children, I'm not convinced that male-female sexual pairing has the same biological factor that it has for other species. While we as humans understand the importance of continuing the human race, unlike dumb animals our primary purpose in life isn't to spawn new humans within an appropriate time frame before we die as part of the natural order of the food chain and the ecosystem.

[Shaddim]

There's no sexual evolution involved, because when it comes to sex there's nothing new under the sun. However, it does run in cycles based on social norms and conformity.

[shifuimam]

Do you think that the continually-growing social acceptance and legitimization of childfreedom might be affecting the so-called biological clock in women?

[ghporter]

The variety of sexual desires, drives and interests humans have is, I would say, pretty much the same as it has been for many hundreds of years. There are two things that make it seem that things are changing: social strictures are breaking down, and we communicate more frankly about things that were socially not discussable in the past.

It's fashionable, and a little naive, for young adults to think of their parents as being either sexless or at least interested only in procreation. As a parent of a young adult, I find it amusing to catch my son's friends' conversations about their parents, and how they badly misjudge the sexuality of people who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s...

Just because the Kama Sutra was written in India, it's not bright to assume that the sorts of issues dealt with in that volume were limited to India. On the contrary; the only openness about those issues in India was among the highest castes. On the other hand, much of that book is about "managing" social issues related to sex, which was only really applicable to those high castes. It doesn't mean that people of lower castes in India, or for that matter elsewhere in the world, didn't participate in a variety of positions and practices, just that there isn't a lot of documentation of those people's practices.

The only really new thin relating to sexuality today is the openness in expressing that individuals resent others telling them how to feel, what to think, and what to and no to do. Those feelings were always there, but it is no longer likely to get a Western person jailed or executed for expressing them.

[subego]

Part of that is people don't want to think of (to quote Bill Hicks) "my hairy dad mounting my mom's 4x4 ass".

However, there's an added angle of the Hays code. Hollywood depicted married couples sleeping in different beds for 50 years. The naïveté was forced upon us to a great extent.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Part of that is people don't want to think of (to quote Bill Hicks) "my hairy dad mounting my mom's 4x4 ass".

However, there's an added angle of the Hays code. Hollywood depicted married couples sleeping in different beds for 50 years. The naïveté was forced upon us to a great extent.

"Ricky and Lucy Ricardo" were shown in the same bed because Desi and Lucy Arnez were married.

[andi*pandi]

But since mary tyler moore and dick van dyke weren't married in real life, they couldn't? TV is pretentd, folks.

Then again, apparently Mary's capris were also scandalous. Pants! On Women! CRAZY.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

But since mary tyler moore and dick van dyke weren't married in real life, they couldn't?.

Yep.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Do you think that the continually-growing social acceptance and legitimization of childfreedom might be affecting the so-called biological clock in women?

I'm still interested to hear what others think about this.

Supposedly women are biologically wired to have a desire to procreate. Given how many women are choosing not to have children today, I'm not convinced that there's an instinctive drive that women have to resist in order to remain childfree.

Is it that this inborn drive has been minimized by society, or is it that it never existed in the first place?

[andi*pandi]

Without a time machine, it would be hard to get a good comparison survey going.

I suspect that a lot of women who didn't want kids back in the day a) didn't have a choice if they got married b) became spinster aunts if not. Just like a lot of gay folks got married and had kids, or joined the clergy. They did what was expected. Maybe now people don't have to? We certainly don't have as many following the religions that say "go forth and procreate."

The biological urge to procreate is real, I noticed it certainly. Does everyone have it? I don't know. Maybe we all start out with it, along with the potential to be great musicians and baseball players... but then something happens to some folks and it gets stifled, or not nurtured.

The term childfreedom bugs me though. It makes it sound like everyone with kids is oppressed and kept down by The Man, er, I mean the Child. I have a friend who doesn't want kids. She's not so whiny or dramatic about it.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

The biological urge to procreate is real, I noticed it certainly. Does everyone have it? I don't know. Maybe we all start out with it, along with the potential to be great musicians and baseball players... but then something happens to some folks and it gets stifled, or not nurtured.

That could be. I do think that some people are born with sports or musical talent though - something that can't be taught.

My personal reasons for not procreating are certainly caused by environment. I suppose it's possible that also stifled the biological drive.

The term childfreedom bugs me though. It makes it sound like everyone with kids is oppressed and kept down by The Man, er, I mean the Child. I have a friend who doesn't want kids. She's not so whiny or dramatic about it.

The thing is, the term "childless" is just as problematic - as though your life is lacking value or significance because you don't have children.

I don't think everyone with kids is oppressed. I do think that there are too many women who have kids because they're supposed to and not because they genuinely want children.

[The Final Dakar]

Childfree is the term you're looking for. (Careless vs. Carefree)

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

The thing is, the term "childless" is just as problematic - as though your life is lacking value or significance because you don't have children.

That's a question you can't really answer until you have them.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's a question you can't really answer until you have them.

And yet, I'm not going to have children simply so that I can determine whether or not my life had value before I had children. I have absolutely no desire, biologically or psychologically, to have children. I'm not going to have a child in the hopes that it will "change me" or that it will "be different because it's mine".

That's the worst ****ing reason on the planet to pop out a baby. It's a human being, not something you do on a whim or for some kind of social experiment.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's a question you can't really answer until you have them.

Oh, you have to have clues. It's not like people are completely ignorant of their own desires and inclinations. Obviously something changed in yourself that you went from not wanting to wanting to have a child, unless you're telling me you decided to roll the dice.

[shifuimam]

Well, there are people who think that women are obligated to procreate as part of their role on the planet. There are people who are so happy having children that they think their happiness is what happens to anyone who has children (protip: it isn't). There are also people who are miserable being parents and want other people to be as miserable as they are so they don't feel so alone.

I find it pedantic and fairly arrogant to tell a woman "you won't know until you try it" when it comes to procreation. It's not like trying Indian food or skydiving or going to Europe on a two-week excursion. It's a human being. A lifelong commitment. Something that changes absolutely everything about your life, yourself, your relationship, and your future.

It's even more arrogant when a man says it - if I understand the biology of it correctly, the man isn't the one who has to carry around an ever-growing thing in his abdomen for nine months and then push it out a hole that's normally barely big enough to take a super absorbency tampon.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

"Ricky and Lucy Ricardo" were shown in the same bed because Desi and Lucy Arnez were married.

Sort of. During the first two seasons, Lucy and Ricky slept in separate twin beds that were pushed together (on a common foundation). After Little Ricky was born, the network insisted that they move the beds apart, and that's where they stayed for the rest of the run of the show, ending in 1957).

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

After Little Ricky was born, the network insisted that they move the beds apart, and that's where they stayed for the rest of the run of the show, ending in 1957).

Wait... how does that make sense?

[andi*pandi]

You see dakar, when a blue bed and a pink bed get pushed close together, the stork comes by and brings you a baby.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

You see dakar, when a blue bed and a pink bed get pushed close together, the stork comes by and brings you a baby.

And when the baby arrives they fly apart in nature?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Wait... how does that make sense?

Maybe because then it was TOO obvious why they were sleeping in the same bed?

Hell, IIRC, they couldn't even say Lucy was pregnant. They had to use the Spanish word for it.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

And when the baby arrives they fly apart in nature?

The only way to get the stork to stop bringing babies is to separate those pesky beds, duh.

SCIENCE!

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

The only way to get the stork to stop bringing babies is to separate those pesky beds, duh.

SCIENCE!

While chanting the magic word...BABALUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Oh, you have to have clues. It's not like people are completely ignorant of their own desires and inclinations. Obviously something changed in yourself that you went from not wanting to wanting to have a child, unless you're telling me you decided to roll the dice.

Did I? Hmm... In a way, yes. I had zero interest in being a father until my wife asked if my mind was set against having one. She'd been 100% in the anti-kid camp until she hit 30, then gradually her perspective started to shift (likely her bio clock engaged). After she did ask, I let myself open up to the possibility and did a lot of soul-searching (because I love her) and came up with, "it could be interesting and probably wouldn't kill me". IOW, I went from "no way" to "maybe". I really didn't feel a direct parental connection until my daughter was a couple months old, before then I sort of went through the motions, but when it did settle in it was almost instantaneous and deeply profound. Frankly, I didn't think I was capable of that type of a bond with another living thing, and nature essentially overpowered my rational mind. It's not something I believe I could have ever prepared for.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

And yet, I'm not going to have children simply so that I can determine whether or not my life had value before I had children. I have absolutely no desire, biologically or psychologically, to have children. I'm not going to have a child in the hopes that it will "change me" or that it will "be different because it's mine".

That's the worst ****ing reason on the planet to pop out a baby. It's a human being, not something you do on a whim or for some kind of social experiment.

Did I say it's a reason? No, I didn't. I said you can't know how they'll enrich your life until you have one. It's a simple statement of fact.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Did I? Hmm... In a way, yes. I had zero interest in being a father until my wife asked if my mind was set against having one. She'd been 100% in the anti-kid camp until she hit 30, then gradually her perspective started to shift (likely her bio clock engaged). After she did ask, I let myself open up to the possibility and did a lot of soul-searching (because I love her) and came up with, "it could be interesting and probably wouldn't kill me". IOW, I went from "no way" to "maybe". I really didn't feel a direct parental connection until my daughter was a couple months old, before then I sort of went through the motions, but when it did settle in it was almost instantaneous and deeply profound. Frankly, I didn't think I was capable of that type of a bond with another living thing, and nature essentially overpowered my rational mind. It's not something I believe I could have ever prepared for.

Did I say it's a reason? No, I didn't. I said you can't know how they'll enrich your life until you have one. It's a simple statement of fact.

You know as well as I do, m'dear, that this entire post is you trying to say "see, parenthood makes you a better person! you should do it! you won't know until you try! I didn't want to, but it changed me! my life is SO MUCH BETTER!"

The translation, when your attitude is presented to someone who has decided very clearly to remain childfree is this: "I'm better than you, because I have children and you don't. My decision to have children has automatically put me on a plane of existence you could not possibly comprehend."

The attitude of you and people like you is part of what makes women have children when they have no business doing so.

You didn't want kids. You went ahead and made one anyhow. You didn't want your kid all that much after she was born, and then suddenly "it clicked".

You do, I hope, comprehend that it doesn't always "click" for everyone, right? If it did, we wouldn't hear horrific stories of children being kept in cages, tethered to potty chairs into adolescence, or locked in maggot-infested rooms to waste away until someone has the fortune of noticing them out a window and calling CPS.

Those are the extreme cases that make national headlines. There are millions more worldwide that never make the news, because nobody ever knows about them - parents who simply don't give a shit about their kids and make it clear from day one that they had a kid because they had to and now very much regret doing so.

Your child is lucky that it "clicked" and you want her now. Not every child is that lucky. Your "click" and settling into happy parenthood is not a reason for anyone else on god's green Earth to procreate.

And quite frankly, you sound like an arrogant dick in your attitude about those who choose not to have children.

I don't need to have a child to know that for me, it would be a very terrible thing to happen to me. That is a simple statement of fact. Whether or not you are capable of accepting it (and do keep in mind that I've made it clear that people who have children and love them are in no way invalidated by those who do not want children, much like how legalizing gay marriage in no way invalidates heterosexual marriage) is irrelevant.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

You know as well as I do, m'dear, that this entire post is you trying to say "see, parenthood makes you a better person! you should do it! you won't know until you try! I didn't want to, but it changed me! my life is SO MUCH BETTER!"

No I didn't, but don't let that stop you from getting your rage on. Why are you so threatened and angry when someone has a differing opinion, why are you upset because I have a life experience that you don't like?

[andi*pandi]

The translation, when your attitude is presented to someone who has decided very clearly to remain childfree is this: "I'm better than you, because I have children and you don't. My decision to have children has automatically put me on a plane of existence you could not possibly comprehend."

Shaddim said nothing of the sort. You are reading things through sh!t-colored glasses.

For a lot of men, the bonding doesn't happen until the baby is a few months old. This could be a) that's when they become more independent of the mother, and dad gets a chance, or b) that's when they smile and become more interactive. After all, the mother has had 9 months to bond. I can say that I didn't really bond until 2-3 months into the pregnancy so... maybe anyone bonding with anything takes a few months?

And as for abuse, that's not a case of not bonding, that's a case of being psycho. As of yet, we don't require parental mental health tests before conception, or periodic spot-checks after birth. Totally unrelated, unless you are saying that if you had kids you'd abuse them because you didn't want them? Whaaat?

What was your upbringing?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Shaddim said nothing of the sort. You are reading things through sh!t-colored glasses.

For a lot of men, the bonding doesn't happen until the baby is a few months old. This could be a) that's when they become more independent of the mother, and dad gets a chance, or b) that's when they smile and become more interactive. After all, the mother has had 9 months to bond. I can say that I didn't really bond until 2-3 months into the pregnancy so... maybe anyone bonding with anything takes a few months?

And as for abuse, that's not a case of not bonding, that's a case of being psycho. As of yet, we don't require parental mental health tests before conception, or periodic spot-checks after birth. Totally unrelated, unless you are saying that if you had kids you'd abuse them because you didn't want them? Whaaat?

It's not necessarily "being psycho". Hormones do crazy things to a person's body. Having a baby and then realizing you made a grave mistake does crazy things to the mind.

The second link I posted - the Tampa Bay Times one - has an interview with the woman who abused her daughter so badly that she has been permanently emotionally and psychologically stunted. The biological mother wasn't very bright, and to this day she insists that she was doing the best she could for her daughter, and that it wasn't as bad as CPS made it out to be.

As it stands, people who have children seem to think that they're better than those around them. Comments like "you don't know until you try" and "my life was bettered in a way I can't describe by having a child" are very one-sided. They do not present the mentality of "having a child was wonderful for me, but I can understand that it's not for everyone". It's more "having a child is something everyone should do once in their lives because it worked out well for me".

I feel particularly strongly about this issue, because I have seen people have children and then emotionally reject them because they never wanted those children. I've also been encountering more and more, as I've aged, snide remarks from parents insisting that I'll change my mind about not having children and that I can't resist my biological clock. There is, for some reason, still a societal expectation in Western culture that a woman have at least one baby in her lifetime, and if she doesn't, she's looked down upon and ostracized for making that choice. That is a huge problem.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Why are you so threatened and angry when someone has a differing opinion, why are you upset because I have a life experience that you don't like?

I've been told that this is a sign of insecurity.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No I didn't, but don't let that stop you from getting your rage on. Why are you so threatened and angry when someone has a differing opinion, why are you upset because I have a life experience that you don't like?

As stated in my response to AP - I am particularly bothered by people who try to present a one-sided view of parenthood.

"You don't know until you try" does not indicate an understanding that there are people who are very happy being childfree. What it indicates is a smug "it worked for me! hah!" attitude about the subject.

Women are still, in 2013, pressured by society to have children. If you're 40 and haven't had a child yet, your friends talk about you behind your back. They ask you why you haven't had kids yet. At family gatherings, everyone wants to know when you're going to have a child.

"You don't know until you try" is something you say to someone who is trying to decide whether or not to change their haircut or try a new restaurant or go to New York City on a trip. It's not something you say to someone with regards to a decision that will permanently change their life.

I think it is great that you had a child and bonded with her and are happy as a parent. I'd much rather hear about that than someone who had a child, greatly regrets it, and secretly wishes they had never made the decision to do so.

What is problematic is your attitude regarding the choice to not have a child.

ETA to clarify:

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

...but when it did settle in it was almost instantaneous and deeply profound. Frankly, I didn't think I was capable of that type of a bond with another living thing, and nature essentially overpowered my rational mind. It's not something I believe I could have ever prepared for.

My point is that this doesn't happen to everyone. You should not have a child simply because you assume or hope that this will happen, even if in the back of your mind you don't believe it will.

I said you can't know how they'll enrich your life until you have one.

THIS is the most problematic statement.

What about parents whose children do not enrich their lives? What about situations where the child, quite frankly, ruins the marriage and the lives of the parents because they didn't really want the child to begin with?

Your phrasing presents an assumption that because your daughter was a great addition to your life, a child is going to be a great addition to anyone's life.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

THIS is the most problematic statement.

No it isn't, you're simply being overly defensive and showing large amounts of insecurity, and not just here. We can't, nor would we want to, make you pregnant. That's your choice, and simply going by the way you present yourself here, it's a good one.

MY EXPERIENCE as a parent has been extremely positive and uplifting, this is the normal response, it's abnormal when people hate their kids and brutalize them. However, I've run into more of that than just about anyone else I know, because we're essentially foster parents to an entire home for abandoned and orphaned kids (26 of them, currently). Although I don't feel as strongly about them as I do my own daughter, I care about them and we provide for them. I've heard their stories, I know how most of them have suffered so your links are unnecessary, but here in "our place" (this area) they do have their needs taken care of, and what they need most is other people who love them.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Shaddim said nothing of the sort. You are reading things through sh!t-colored glasses.

For a lot of men, the bonding doesn't happen until the baby is a few months old. This could be a) that's when they become more independent of the mother, and dad gets a chance, or b) that's when they smile and become more interactive. After all, the mother has had 9 months to bond. I can say that I didn't really bond until 2-3 months into the pregnancy so... maybe anyone bonding with anything takes a few months?

Yeah, when she started smiling, reaching, and closely following things with her eyes, that's when she hooked and reeled her old man in, ever since then we've been practically inseparable.

[shifuimam]

Your smugness is palpable.

[pooka]

I'm with the insecure chick. There is no logical argument for offspring enriching any aspects of it's host's life. By design they are a drain and exhaustive chore. Any "benefits" are more than likely some sort of biological coping mechanism evolution bestowed upon us to keep from snuffing them out. If you truly step back and look at the "experience" objectively, there's no way you can avoid calling bullshit. To each his/her own.

[Spheric Harlot]

I'm not going to join the fight, but I will say that NOTHING I have ever experienced or will ever experience compares to the love for my daughter, and seeing it reciprocated.
This is something that I really don't know how to explain.

Also, just knowing she was on her way focused me like nothing else has done. Priorities just happened. And I never thought twice about them. Me, who used to be the laziest guy on the planet. It might be biological. It feels like it's hardwired. So is eating and drinking and sex, and people seem to derive inordinate amounts of pleasure from these things.

I think that if my own childhood had been a lot worse, an attitude of "the buck stops here" would have prevailed, and with good reason. As it is, she's turning out a really secure, considerate and lovely person, so years of therapy and personal development appear to have paid off: we appear to be doing more good than harm.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Priorities just happened. And I never thought twice about them. Me, who used to be the laziest guy on the planet.

I can relate to this. Looking back, I was pretty selfish in general. My marriage is certainly different now, and in a very good way.

[subego]

Interesting.

I struggle with feelings (well, actions too) of selfishness.

[subego]

It's sort of a catch-22.

I've avoided having kids because I've felt too selfish to be as good of a parent as I should be.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Your smugness is palpable.

You're reading much too much into it. Since you're dead-set against kids, why would you care that I'm not? Reading your posts, you think having children is akin to contracting an STD, it's the same as getting angry because other people are raving about how wonderful their herpes is. Do you secretly want to procreate but are in denial, or do you think that there's some type of funky internet intercourse going on and you're going to electronically get knocked up? Whoa, that would be some "sexual evolution" going on, now wouldn't it?

[pooka]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I'm not going to join the fight, but I will say that NOTHING I have ever experienced or will ever experience compares to the love for my poodle, and seeing it reciprocated.
This is something that I really don't know how to explain.

No offense intended nor any attempts to belittle the sentiment you're expressing, but I've heard EXACTLY the same thing from a wide variety of people over the course of my life. Hell, I met a former sculpture who worked at the vatican for a while. He now makes some of the most beautiful guitars I've ever seen. We chatted it up once and the way he described his experience working with wood... the feeling and the sound of using some rare-as-**** hand planer came across as the most remarkable experience a human being was capable of experiencing. Sort of like what people tell me about having kids.

Having a kid doesn't mean jack-shit to me. Being the best god damn parent you're capable of being is an admirable goal and worthy of respect (in my book). Society as a whole benefits from such endeavors. My beef is when I have to directly or indirectly listen to the bullshit "factual" arguments such as "you won't understand until you leave it in and wait 9 months" is comically stupid to me. I mean, sure, I don't have a reference point, but I can objectively observe just fine from here and don't get the appeal. I think I'd rather go skydiving or learn RoR.

I don't think there is a "right" answer. I think it's just as plausible that child rearing is truly a nightmarish endeavor. We are preprogrammed with an innate desire to breed. I don't see why it's so difficult to ponder whether or not we're also preprogrammed to look favorably upon an utterly crippling handicap that SIGNIFICANTLY reduces our chances of survival (in the wild).

[The Final Dakar]

Am I being a derailing asshole if I mention that scientifically, some studies have shown parents are less happy than their childfree counterparts?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Am I being a derailing asshole if I mention that scientifically, some studies have shown parents are less happy than their childfree counterparts?

Since most of the people who are breeding are broke as ****, not surprising.

[pooka]

Sounds perfectly on topic to me. Confirmation bias or not, it seems to line up with my own limited experience as well. But I can't know for sure until I make one and watch it grow and do stuff and become convinced that it may be smarter than any other kid I've ever seen. At least smarter than most. And, oh my god, if it starts talking/walking/gurgling sooner than the national average...

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by pooka 

No offense intended nor any attempts to belittle the sentiment you're expressing, but I've heard EXACTLY the same thing from a wide variety of people over the course of my life. Hell, I met a former sculpture who worked at the vatican for a while. He now makes some of the most beautiful guitars I've ever seen. We chatted it up once and the way he described his experience working with wood... the feeling and the sound of using some rare-as-**** hand planer came across as the most remarkable experience a human being was capable of experiencing. Sort of like what people tell me about having kids.

Having a kid doesn't mean jack-shit to me. Being the best god damn parent you're capable of being is an admirable goal and worthy of respect (in my book). Society as a whole benefits from such endeavors. My beef is when I have to directly or indirectly listen to the bullshit "factual" arguments such as "you won't understand until you leave it in and wait 9 months" is comically stupid to me. I mean, sure, I don't have a reference point, but I can objectively observe just fine from here and don't get the appeal. I think I'd rather go skydiving or learn RoR.

I don't think there is a "right" answer. I think it's just as plausible that child rearing is truly a nightmarish endeavor. We are preprogrammed with an innate desire to breed. I don't see why it's so difficult to ponder whether or not we're also preprogrammed to look favorably upon an utterly crippling handicap that SIGNIFICANTLY reduces our chances of survival (in the wild).

Yeah, but no offense, you seem like a somewhat unstable and inordinately grouchy person, most of the time. Having rugrats isn't for everyone, of course, but most do love theirs. (He types, as his little girl throws cereal at him. )

[pooka]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Since most of the people who are breeding are broke as ****, not surprising.

So if you have the means, it's a perfectly enjoyable multi-decade hobby and expense. Like owning an e30 M3.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by pooka 

So if you have the means, it's a perfectly enjoyable multi-decade hobby and expense. Like owning an e30 M3.

Well, I have both a kid and an E30 M3 (`88) and both are rewarding, so yeah.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by subego 

Interesting.

I struggle with feelings (well, actions too) of selfishness.

It's not necessarily selfish to decide to not have children.

That's kind of the de facto response by parents when they find out someone they know is voluntarily choosing to not have children.

If I changed my mind tomorrow and decided I wanted a kid, it would be incredibly selfish of me. We're living on one income right now in a high cost-of-living area. We barely have enough money to support ourselves and four animals (two dogs, two cats), let alone another human being. I'm still trying to establish a solid career path for myself. It would be unfair my hypothetical child, because the simple fact is that I want a career. Trying to do both - parenthood and career - is unfair and more selfish than picking one and running with it.

People who decide to have kids are doing what they want for themselves, which could be seen as selfish, could it not? Isn't it pretty selfish to create another human being rather than adopting one of the millions of children in third-world countries whose life expectancies barely break two digits?

There are obviously people who do both - Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt have what, two biological children and four adopted ones or something like that. That's great. For normal people, however, who don't have money falling out of their butts, that isn't the case.