or adopt and skip the 1-5 age if that's your hangup.
i'll probably do it around 32-34 regardless of if i'm married or not. i really do love kids - but that's exactly why i avoid the hell out of them. been in relationships where i cared about the kids more than the parent did and its just a mess.
i'll probably do it around 32-34 regardless of if i'm married or not. i really do love kids - but that's exactly why i avoid the hell out of them. been in relationships where i cared about the kids more than the parent did and its just a mess.
By db Go To PostI just don't get why people put their legacy into kids. Why not put a legacy into doing good and assisting people.
By Gabyskra Go To PostYeah, you shouldn't have a kid because you're afraid of death.Ok, so give good reasons to have kids please. Having a kid (not adopting) is a selfish endeavor. From there you decide as a parent whether to be selfless and responsible or you don't. That's not to say good and bad parenting doesn't come in different flavors. There's no "good reason" to bring a kid into the world, though there can be bad and good in the timing of having a child, there's no prefect happening. either have a kid or you don't, and become a responsible parent or you don't. there's no in between with a persons life. So don't judge people on wanting a legacy when its likely ingrained on a genetic/evolutionary/societal level. if you can't see a reason to have a child that's fine, keep it pushing and let other people have one for their own reasons.
I happen to LOVE my free time right now. I'm not about to just give that up, willingly lol. Gonna get the absolute most out of it so that I'm not that douchebag that smokes with guys like me who say shit like "man if i didn't have these FAMILY i'd be doing THINGS and STUFF in PLACE without RESPONSIBILITIES /resent"
By DY_nasty Go To PostI happen to LOVE my free time right now. I'm not about to just give that up, willingly lol. Gonna get the absolute most out of it so that I'm not that douchebag that smokes with guys like me who say shit like "man if i didn't have these FAMILY i'd be doing THINGS and STUFF in PLACE without RESPONSIBILITIES /resent"Man, and that's good on you. I've always been a family man, I've always known I was going to have a family on my own so I've crafted a persona around being able to be entertained in nearly any facet of life. I don't need the boys for that. I don't need foreign tail for that. Nor drugs, etc. I say let people enjoy the shit they want, but at the same time I'm not gonna hear a dude complain about a lifestyle he chose while condemning others for something he don't have anymore. Enjoy that free time lol
In 30 years, I've yet to ever read or hear someone to the tune of "no one should have kids". No one says that here, nor is anyone saying "choose between a kid or foreign tail". It is actually the parents that DY talks about that have that kind of unhealthy resentment...
But it is all the time you hear "it is counter-natural not to want kids". All the fucking time. Here in this discussion included, with the desire to have children said to be genetic coding... an idea which is quite homophobic, if you take the time to think about it.
Historically, for the longest time, a crushing majority of kids were born because humans did not handle birth control very well. This is changing. Reactionary revisionists are lying about marriage and family forever being the product of love; in truth this is a very very recent idea. A beautiful one, but no need to lie about the past.
People sometimes have kids for pretty terrible reasons. That's the frightening part IMO. They do so because they hope the kid will bring them a happiness they lack, because they are afraid to die, etc, all neuroses that will create messed up codependency and suffocating environments. Kids are thought of as the solution, when they should come in a mostly problem-free environment. Very much like healthy relationships by the way, which come to people who are doing fine on their own.
I love kids, I hope I'll have some of my own one day. In the mean time, I work in education already, in which there is a little bit of parenting... but thank god that we rely on society and not just on parents because of "tradition" for the upbringing of the youth... The meaning of family is changing and that is sometimes for the better.
Have kids because it can be a loving relationship. Not to compensate something else, a sense of accomplishment or whatever. It should be a desire, not a necessity.
But it is all the time you hear "it is counter-natural not to want kids". All the fucking time. Here in this discussion included, with the desire to have children said to be genetic coding... an idea which is quite homophobic, if you take the time to think about it.
Historically, for the longest time, a crushing majority of kids were born because humans did not handle birth control very well. This is changing. Reactionary revisionists are lying about marriage and family forever being the product of love; in truth this is a very very recent idea. A beautiful one, but no need to lie about the past.
People sometimes have kids for pretty terrible reasons. That's the frightening part IMO. They do so because they hope the kid will bring them a happiness they lack, because they are afraid to die, etc, all neuroses that will create messed up codependency and suffocating environments. Kids are thought of as the solution, when they should come in a mostly problem-free environment. Very much like healthy relationships by the way, which come to people who are doing fine on their own.
I love kids, I hope I'll have some of my own one day. In the mean time, I work in education already, in which there is a little bit of parenting... but thank god that we rely on society and not just on parents because of "tradition" for the upbringing of the youth... The meaning of family is changing and that is sometimes for the better.
Have kids because it can be a loving relationship. Not to compensate something else, a sense of accomplishment or whatever. It should be a desire, not a necessity.
Gaby pretty much said what I was going to. I'll have to be a bit real talk and judgy about the idea that legacies are part of just replicating your genes rather than in your acts and deeds on this earth.
He's talking about a long held concept that people who don't have kids are failures. That it is unnatural to lack the desire to procreate. At its core it's homophobic because a loving relationship between gays cannot yield kids.
By db Go To PostHe's talking about a long held concept that people who don't have kids are failures. That it is unnatural to lack the desire to procreate. At its core it's homophobic because a loving relationship between gays cannot yield kids.That's not true where surrogacy is concerned. If two homosexual individuals want to procreate they have the means to do so and that choice is theirs. I urge them to carry it out. Chances are they'll fuck it up or do just as well as any other parent raising a child.
What I was saying was to ignore the fact that evolutionary speaking we are constantly pushed towards having children as a by-product of things like sex, attraction, etc. is delusional. People want to have children for a number of complex and simple reasons. I never said there wasn't a bad reason to have children, but I was disagreeing with the notion that there was a "good reason" to have one. There are good reasons to adopt a child. Birthing a child will always be a selfish act. What you do with it afterwards should determine whether you're responsible or not. You can be opposed to having children all you want but to deny that there isn't evolutionary merit behind intercourse and the desire to have a child is just naive.
By EloquentM Go To PostThat's not true where surrogacy is concerned. If two homosexual individuals want to procreate they have the means to do so and that choice is theirs. I urge them to carry it out. Chances are they'll fuck it up or do just as well as any other parent raising a child.Way to ignore the point and also reinforce it.
By EloquentM Go To PostThat's not true where surrogacy is concerned. If two homosexual individuals want to procreate they have the means to do so and that choice is theirs. I urge them to carry it out. Chances are they'll fuck it up or do just as well as any other parent raising a child.You never had a family member ask if you're gay because you're approaching 30 without a wife and kids?
Incredibly often, when "nature" is brought up in a conversation, you can be sure it will be to justify some conservative stance. You're gay? You can still stick your seed in a woman! You're selfish? That's human nature! You don't want kids? That's against your innate desires! Etc.
It's kind of telling that during our whole conversation talking about societal pressures to have kids and the implications of "family" being normal and a goal one "should" have, your response is "but gays can have kids now."
By db Go To PostWay to ignore the point and also reinforce it.why don't you and him express your points with a little bit more finesse instead of being deliberately combative and defensive?
By Gabyskra Go To PostIncredibly often, when "nature" is brought up in a conversation, you can be sure it will be to justify some conservative stance. You're gay? You can still stick your seed in a woman! You're selfish? That's human nature! You don't want kids? That's against your innate desires! Etc.
By reilo Go To PostYou never had a family member ask if you're gay because you're approaching 30 without a wife and kids?If they did I'd say that was my prerogative. I'm not saying that people who aren't interested in having children are unnatural but it's ignorant to say that the desire to have children isn't vaguely evolutionarily driven.
I think what you're saying is a bit confusing when you talk about evolution and reproduction. Reproduction happens through by-products of a huge variety of media in the living world. Some animals change sex midway through their existence (Epinephelus marginatus, merou, for instance). Flowers cross-pollinate. Etc. People want to have sex. That much is true (if you say "some people" instead of "all people" because some people simply don't want to have sex... i mentioned homosexuality but i could have mentioned asexuality). But sexual activity goes way beyond the need to procreate. As you know.
Semantically, you can't talk about the bad without the good. It's a moral scale, it can not tip just one way, since one is defined by the other. If it's all neutral, alright that is coherent; but if something is bad, its absence is good, by definition.
I never said there wasn't a bad reason to have children, but I was disagreeing with the notion that there was a "good reason" to have one.
Semantically, you can't talk about the bad without the good. It's a moral scale, it can not tip just one way, since one is defined by the other. If it's all neutral, alright that is coherent; but if something is bad, its absence is good, by definition.
We could open a discussion on the theory of evolution if you want.
Because misunderstandings about the means of evolution lead to some pretty nasty ideas sometimes (see Herbert Spencer).
It is not evolution that will lead to the disappearance of asexuality and homosexuality. That's not how it works.
Because misunderstandings about the means of evolution lead to some pretty nasty ideas sometimes (see Herbert Spencer).
It is not evolution that will lead to the disappearance of asexuality and homosexuality. That's not how it works.
Evolutionary/what's natural to humans/evopsych talk is irrelevant and pure guess work since society has stepped in plenty to impose its will. And it doesn't matter either. There is no "natural" one can truly suss out because we're not some animal to observe and even in observing animals we constantly conflate actions and look through a filtered lens.
By db Go To PostIt's kind of telling that during our whole conversation talking about societal pressures to have kids and the implications of "family" being normal and a goal one "should" have, your response is "but gays can have kids now."Telling? I never brought the homosexual demographic into the conversation.
My point> evolutionary psychology says people have sex and attraction to eventually have children. (Never said all people have sex to have children or that all people have a desire to propagate my bad for not clarifying I'm typing this from work. )
Your/his point> what about people who are homosexual? You whole argument falls about with them because they have sex and it's not to procreate.
My point> there are homosexual individuals who want children and are homosexual. There are means for those people to have kids. Heterosexual attraction and the desire to procreate are not mutually exclusive.
Here we go with more evopsych, I'm sorry it's like the epitome of bad science. Draw conclusions based on how we are now and pretend it's always been that way just on a smaller scale and ignore all of the societies in which it was done different.
I'm going to try to come back to this after work to have a more extensive discussion. My apologies for not being able to get my points out clearly.
For the record I am not attempting to argue that individuals who can't or don't desire to have children are in anyway unnatural or wrong.
For the record I am not attempting to argue that individuals who can't or don't desire to have children are in anyway unnatural or wrong.
Look, guys, this is pretty simple. And yeah, what EloquentM is saying is fairly conservative/anti-scientific.
EloquentM, you're saying the "innate desire to have kids" is what we call an evolutionary advantage because you're assuming it was a necessity for the human race. That's how evolution works, out of necessity, over a long period of time, some characteristics survive in a filtering environment. To a given environment, certain characteristics correspond, and thus the carriers of said characteristic have an advantage over others. It is a process.
So you're saying without a given psychological trait, the human race would have met a dead-end.
But life is funnier than that. Reproduction happens as a consequence of other things. You can have kids even when you don't want them! As we all know from using condoms. You don't even need consciousness! Flowers do it just fine without awareness.
So either you're being careless with your words like earlier, mistaking the "innate desire to have kids" with, say, sexual pleasure or a number of things, and then it's a matter of speaking the same language, or more simply it is just lacking a little bit in scientificity.
EloquentM, you're saying the "innate desire to have kids" is what we call an evolutionary advantage because you're assuming it was a necessity for the human race. That's how evolution works, out of necessity, over a long period of time, some characteristics survive in a filtering environment. To a given environment, certain characteristics correspond, and thus the carriers of said characteristic have an advantage over others. It is a process.
So you're saying without a given psychological trait, the human race would have met a dead-end.
But life is funnier than that. Reproduction happens as a consequence of other things. You can have kids even when you don't want them! As we all know from using condoms. You don't even need consciousness! Flowers do it just fine without awareness.
So either you're being careless with your words like earlier, mistaking the "innate desire to have kids" with, say, sexual pleasure or a number of things, and then it's a matter of speaking the same language, or more simply it is just lacking a little bit in scientificity.
The vast majority of sex isn't even procreative is the funny bit. My issue is that society has said for a long time you need a heir, you need a legacy and relatively little about how good deeds and actions are a legacy, not throwing your DNA around. I hate to be that flippant and I'm not trying to shit on people who want to have kids or already do but think about how much progeny is out there without even a caring parent because it's more "natural" to have a kid than live a long life being a decent human being.
By Smokey Go To PostAm I back in psychology 101right
im trying to AVOID classwork right now
anyways, you budget for those pampers yet or naw?
By Smokey Go To PostAm I back in psychology 101
You're in the wrong class Mr Smokey, this is biology for 9th graders. But it's not like Darwinism is the most well understood idea...
Now, since we're in Kansas, let's listen to what the Bible tells us about sex.
- it's only for procreation. Don't masturbate.
- women who cheat should be stoned to death.
- same with homosexuals.
and some other shit, can't be bothered to read the Deuteronome.
We got lovely terms for women who don't go through all that too. Where do people think "spinster" and "old maid" come from.
By DY_nasty Go To Postright
im trying to AVOID classwork right now
anyways, you budget for those pampers yet or naw?
not yet. i think when 2016 shit will hit me and get real. right now it's same as it was before. just making sure she eats right etc
in other news
i got a new hire coming into my group next month. i am assigned to be her mentor. graduated from same school that i did. got to thinking...i've always wanted to go back and recruit. talked to the recruitment chair for my school and got on the committee. gonna be going to career fairs and staring into the empty souls of students dressed in suits who hope that i remember their name.
kind of hyped about it actually. had a moment and took a good look around today. not nearly enough of "us" here. me and one other dude. gonna try and change that.
By db Go To PostWe got lovely terms for women who don't go through all that too. Where do people think "spinster" and "old maid" come from.
It's definitely harsher on women, people comment freely on their "biological clock" with little care as to how that could be hurtful or oppressive.
Smokey happy that he the one next to Snoop who get to push the button now.
What do you do, if you don't mind me asking.
What do you do, if you don't mind me asking.
By Smokey Go To Postnot yet. i think when 2016 shit will hit me and get real. right now it's same as it was before. just making sure she eats right etclol damn
in other news
i got a new hire coming into my group next month. i am assigned to be her mentor. graduated from same school that i did. got to thinking…i've always wanted to go back and recruit. talked to the recruitment chair for my school and got on the committee. gonna be going to career fairs and staring into the empty souls of students dressed in suits who hope that i remember their name.
kind of hyped about it actually. had a moment and took a good look around today. not nearly enough of "us" here. me and one other dude. gonna try and change that.
its all fun and games til your #1 recruit can't get out of bed then you're on the phone like
By Trey Go To PostSmokey happy that he the one next to Snoop who get to push the button now.
What do you do, if you don't mind me asking.
I work in IT at one of the (really big) oil companies. Tough times right now obviously.
Chairman said he needs help going to campus and speaking to students, along with working career fairs and mixers. I got in with my company via the career fair which landed me an internship. I took a look at the recruiting team and there was 1/16 who was black. Naw we gotta change that.
So I'll be going and doing that. When I went there my company was one of the top with lines out the door. Hopefully I can be that face that other black folks in my major can relate to. I know for a fact we weren't represented on the recruitment team at those career fairs. Don't know why I waited so long to join up.
Now you can't be coming at me with some sub 3.0 GPA and expecting me to help you out tho
By reilo Go To PostOil industry, IT, Texas? db pls.
Still better than the ratio at slaent!
By DY_nasty Go To Postlol damn
its all fun and games til your #1 recruit can't get out of bed then you're on the phone like
lol
i just need to get them through the door and into the interview. That's the hardest part. From there you on ya own breh
can't even imagine going out on a limb for someone and they don't even come the bare minimum of correct. That's that stuff that would make my soul burn slow
By reilo Go To PostOil industry, IT, Texas? db pls.
By Gabyskra Go To PostStill better than the ratio at slaent!o
By Gabyskra Go To PostStill better than the ratio at slaent!i failed
By db Go To PostI just don't get why people put their legacy into kids. Why not put a legacy into doing good and assisting people.
People chase things that they think will make them happy. I'm a part of an international church and it's the same shit with my fellow members. As a child, I dealt with being unwanted... twice and it sucked. Won't get into it but let's just say people want me dead in certain hood in a certain midwestern city. I've been having the shittest of dreams where I'm like married with a kid and it's all weird because who's happy with kids?
---
Just had a Patrice O'Neal moment. Figured out that ultimately I just want to be happy, have a strong career, and have an army of kickass people around me. This kind of useless at my age given my lack of support system and no clue about where to move to. Might be taking an hiatus from school out of sheer mental exhaustion. That trip was the worst thing that could've happened to me in hindsight because literally everything after then has been a disappointment.
Gaby at his best I see. Anything that's not on the far left of the ideological spectrum is now conservatism. As combative, demeaning, and unwilling to accept any notion other than ideological purity outside his as any tea partier has ever been.
Disagree or not, but to imply that a guy suggesting that procreation is evolutionary is definitely a homophobe and preaching conservatism is lulz.
What human beings are evolutionarily hardwired to be isn't the same as our socia, collective, or individual moral codes. Gaby, in his ultra left wing glasses, took it to be a comment on morality, when it wasn't.
In the same way that individual human beings can be hardwired to survive, but many people certainly admire people who rush into danger to help save others than people who run away from it to save their own skin. No one would suggest that claiming that the fight or flight reflex of individual survival exists means that firefighters and rescue workers are immoral or somehow inferior to people who leave babies behind while fleeing burning buildings. But Gaby read some conservative bigot kind of sort of make a claim that homosexuality isn't evolutionary and now perceives everyone to be a bigot who holds something kind of sort of not really that opinion.
This will, like all things, be misconstrued as conservative propaganda and then fought with a zeal that would make even the most ardent tea partier blush with envy.
Disagree or not, but to imply that a guy suggesting that procreation is evolutionary is definitely a homophobe and preaching conservatism is lulz.
What human beings are evolutionarily hardwired to be isn't the same as our socia, collective, or individual moral codes. Gaby, in his ultra left wing glasses, took it to be a comment on morality, when it wasn't.
In the same way that individual human beings can be hardwired to survive, but many people certainly admire people who rush into danger to help save others than people who run away from it to save their own skin. No one would suggest that claiming that the fight or flight reflex of individual survival exists means that firefighters and rescue workers are immoral or somehow inferior to people who leave babies behind while fleeing burning buildings. But Gaby read some conservative bigot kind of sort of make a claim that homosexuality isn't evolutionary and now perceives everyone to be a bigot who holds something kind of sort of not really that opinion.
This will, like all things, be misconstrued as conservative propaganda and then fought with a zeal that would make even the most ardent tea partier blush with envy.
By db Go To PostThat's not how evolution works. Ugh.
It's one thing to claim that it's not a correct understanding of evolution. And then make your point. It's another entirely to implu someone is a homophobe, or an immature misogynist (his last page response to Phaze), or peddling conservative propaganda.
He wasn't implying eloquent was a homophobe, he was saying acting like it's the natural imperative of every living human being to procreate leaves the implication that gay people are somehow inferior and he's not wrong.
Our very nature is far more complicated than every person just wants to spawn and it ignores the societal pressure imposed on each individual to do so lest they are some kind of loner, weirdo, spinster or what have you. The prevailing culture has been to spurn people who make the choice not to produce children.
Our very nature is far more complicated than every person just wants to spawn and it ignores the societal pressure imposed on each individual to do so lest they are some kind of loner, weirdo, spinster or what have you. The prevailing culture has been to spurn people who make the choice not to produce children.
By db Go To PostHe wasn't implying eloquent was a homophobe, he was saying acting like it's the natural imperative of every living human being to procreate leaves the implication that gay people are somehow inferior and he's not wrong.
Our very nature is far more complicated than every person just wants to spawn and it ignores the societal pressure imposed on each individual to do so lest they are some kind of loner, weirdo, spinster or what have you. The prevailing culture has been to spurn people who make the choice not to produce children.
"Likely ingrained for an individual in a evolutionary/genetic/societal level" is what he said.
He was defending people who wanted to leave a legacy (another group of people Gaby condescendingly attacked) by attempting to suggest it's not some superficial transitory feeling - and specifically mentioned social pressures.
Gaby read that as "that's homophobic"
Saying it's in all of our genes kind of paints gay people as genetically different specimen since their coupling does not result in children. And this is not a new idea and yes can be construed as homophobic, I doubt he thinks eloquent himself is, just that ideas of what we assume are hardwired into us tend to be pretty exclusionary when thought about longer.
I will completely disregard your shit tbh, it's late as fuck, you're neither worth it nor even close to making the conversation somewhat interesting... ad hominem through and through, grand revelations such as the fact that i lean towards the political far left, joke sentences such as "procreation is evolutionary", etc.
... but I'll be honest, I've been curious since the other day when you said something like "leave the basketball talk to grownups" (for a freaking hobby...). So, dude, what's your bio then? What do you do for a living, where have you lived, how old are you, etc? Tell me what kind of grown-up you are, because that kind of authoritative posturing, well, I might listen to you more if I know where you come from and understand your background. To make it fair, you might have pieced together I'm a 30 yo teacher, been working in France and the US, finishing up a bit of research in social sciences, I do okay at it, I've had my share of long and short relationships, i've been fairly sentimental and I actually know what the fuck I talk about here when it comes to darwinism, which is not about "ideological purity" or other dumb catchphrases you're serving us. Just fucking enlighten me, man, are you the most interesting person on the planet or what?
... but I'll be honest, I've been curious since the other day when you said something like "leave the basketball talk to grownups" (for a freaking hobby...). So, dude, what's your bio then? What do you do for a living, where have you lived, how old are you, etc? Tell me what kind of grown-up you are, because that kind of authoritative posturing, well, I might listen to you more if I know where you come from and understand your background. To make it fair, you might have pieced together I'm a 30 yo teacher, been working in France and the US, finishing up a bit of research in social sciences, I do okay at it, I've had my share of long and short relationships, i've been fairly sentimental and I actually know what the fuck I talk about here when it comes to darwinism, which is not about "ideological purity" or other dumb catchphrases you're serving us. Just fucking enlighten me, man, are you the most interesting person on the planet or what?