View Poll Results: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

Voters
229. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. Having children is a moral obligation to God/society/family/etc.

    9 3.93%
  • No, they are free not to have children. They don't have to answer to anybody

    161 70.31%
  • Not if they have reproductive problems.

    2 0.87%
  • Yes, even if they have reproductive problems. They can adopt, you know.

    1 0.44%
  • They should get a medal for lowering world population.

    44 19.21%
  • Other

    10 4.37%
  • I don't know.

    2 0.87%
Page 48 of 53 FirstFirst ... 384647484950 ... LastLast
Results 471 to 480 of 522

Thread: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

  1. #471
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    I'll tell you what Ocean's deal probably is. I see this a lot, and I've done my rounds with it as well, I freely admit; you can see a hint of it in my posting history. It gets more common as childfree people get older. This is why there are studies on childfree stigma management.

    Childfree women can get some really abusive **** hurled at them. And it takes something that used to just kind of be background noise to us (we realized one day we won't have kids, and there ya go) and turns it into something that makes us feel like we're constantly under attack -- because some of us actually are. I've had people wish ill health on me and had a family member I was being punished by god for not wanting kids.

    If you read Ocean's posts, she indicates she's in her 40's or so. She's not a spring chicken. I'm actually the youngest childfree person in this thread, if not the youngest on DP.

    I do not think there is anything that would change my mind that would not also change my personality. And like I said, in such a case, I am glad I am already sterile.
    I do get it, and I understand it from a parallel perspective. I guess the biggest thing has been that those of us that have questioned Ocean about this, first, did so before she had revealed her age and second were not speaking from a perspective of "it's your place as a woman to have kids" but of "be careful what you say will never happen because it just might, especially if you are young." And then when we note that this is our point, one that we would give to any gender regardless of topic, we're still bashed upon the former point.

    Honestly I hope that she doesn't change her mind given her age. That would involve much higher risks for her and a baby. The only thing I've been looking for is can she admit to the possibility that despite the improbability, something might happen to make her willingly change her mind (even if she wouldn't act upon it) and if such a change did come about would she say "Hey turns out there actually was something I never foresaw that caused me to change my mind"? You, by the way you worded your last sentence leave open the possibility. You also strike me as one who would say later, yes you are indeed changing your mind on the matter.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  2. #472
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,174

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    I do get it, and I understand it from a parallel perspective. I guess the biggest thing has been that those of us that have questioned Ocean about this, first, did so before she had revealed her age and second were not speaking from a perspective of "it's your place as a woman to have kids" but of "be careful what you say will never happen because it just might, especially if you are young." And then when we note that this is our point, one that we would give to any gender regardless of topic, we're still bashed upon the former point.

    Honestly I hope that she doesn't change her mind given her age. That would involve much higher risks for her and a baby. The only thing I've been looking for is can she admit to the possibility that despite the improbability, something might happen to make her willingly change her mind (even if she wouldn't act upon it) and if such a change did come about would she say "Hey turns out there actually was something I never foresaw that caused me to change my mind"? You, by the way you worded your last sentence leave open the possibility. You also strike me as one who would say later, yes you are indeed changing your mind on the matter.
    Yeah, but like I said, we never see these same pushes for an admission aimed at childfree men, so what are we to assume? And again, you're not in her head.

    What I think could change my mind about being childfree is precisely the same thing that can change someone's sexuality. There are rare cases of people being struck in a particular area of the brain that has resulted in a switch of sexuality. That's what I think it would take.

    However, such a switch of personality would not necessarily make me a better candidate for motherhood given all the other immutable factors, which is why I still wouldn't want to do it, and would hope the rather aggressive tubal procedure I had would prevent me from being able to get around it if I lost sight of that.

    I could admit that my thinking has been impaired by forces outside my control, certainly. There's no shame in that. I could also admit if I did simply change my mind, but like I said, this isn't something I really decided. It's something I just know, and the traits of it were visible even early in my own childhood.

    Everything we think comes from our brains, and therefore with sufficient pressure, anything can be changed.

    So, question. Can you admit the probably equally remote possibility you might regret having your children someday?
    Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 03-21-14 at 09:03 AM.

  3. #473
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    So, question. Can you admit the probably equally remote possibility you might regret having your children someday?
    Already did so the first time you asked.

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    I'm a little too late in the years to regret having the kids. They are grown and out of the house. And I will say honestly that there has always been some regret on them but it was more directed at the years wasted with their mother and not the kids themselves. However, I will won't ever say that it is an impossibility for that deep terrible regret to descend upon me. While I doubt it, much as I doubt that Ocean will change her mind, it is still possible. I at least can acknowledge the difference between possibility and probability.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  4. #474
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,174

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Already did so the first time you asked.
    Ah, forgive me; I'm very scattered this week.

  5. #475
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    11-29-14 @ 08:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,612

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Honestly I hope that she doesn't change her mind given her age. That would involve much higher risks for her and a baby.
    Great, then you won't be disappointed. I will NOT change my mind, and I don't WANT a baby. Nor do I want a husband. I enjoy my life of freedom far too much to give it up for either marriage or motherhood.

  6. #476
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ocean007 View Post
    Great, then you won't be disappointed. I will NOT change my mind, and I don't WANT a baby. Nor do I want a husband. I enjoy my life of freedom far too much to give it up for either marriage or motherhood.
    Can't you just be straight forward enough to say "no, I will not acknowledge that there is a really slim possibility albeit with a extremely high improbability, change of changing my mind and even should I do so, I'd never admit here that I did."? Or even "Yes if that 1 in 52853 qunitatrillion raised to the 6 billionth power chance should ever occur, I'd be honest enough to admit I was wrong."?
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  7. #477
    Sage

    Scrabaholic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,574

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfie View Post
    I'm shocked SM..why ever did you make such a decision at such an early age??
    I was a lot younger than SM when I decided to not have children.....unfortunately, I wasn't able to get a tubal due to my age and the fact I don't have kids. I have never regretted my choice to be childfree.

  8. #478
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    11-29-14 @ 08:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,612

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Can't you just be straight forward enough to say "no, I will not acknowledge that there is a really slim possibility albeit with a extremely high improbability, change of changing my mind and even should I do so, I'd never admit here that I did."?
    Why is it so important to you that I answer the question YOUR way?

    I have said more than once that there is NO chance that I will ever "meet someone who could change my mind" about being childfree or about marriage either, for that matter. Obviously, for some reason that is beyond me, my answer isn't enough for you. Well, as I also said before, that isn't my problem. Since I enjoy my life much more BECAUSE I'm single and childfree, there is NO guy out there who could ever make me want to change it. ANY guy who tried pressuring me into marriage OR motherhood will be dumped immediately.

    The way I see it, the single/childfree life is paradise, marriage/motherhood would be misery, for me anyway. I have no desire or intention to trade paradise for misery.

  9. #479
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    There is nothing rational about this weird form of social darwinism promoted by people who know nothing about sociology or anthropology.
    I read about evolution, animal behavior (humans are animals), and game theory. I tend to look at evolution from Dawkins' perspective, which is based on gene survival and includes individual actions, social actions, and the physical characteristics of the "meat machines" used for transporting and copying genes. There is a genetic basis for animal behavior and anyone who denies that doesn't know much about evolution. For example, many animals risk their own survival to warn others in their group of a predator. That isn't "social Darwinism" or "altruism", it's gene survival - because when virtually the entire population has this trait, the genes (individuals) in it tend to survive better than the population that doesn't have this trait. This natural selection extends to many, many kinds of behavior, including the social pressures we've talked about here. Again, it isn't "social Darwinism", altruism, or any of a number of other misnomers for this kind of behavior. It's simply natural selection at work.


    And just an FYI - one of my sisters has never been married or had children and is well over 60 at this point. I have no problem with her life choices at all and never have had. I guess the next time we talk I'll have to broach this subject with her. We've never talked about it because, quite frankly, it's none of my business how anyone's lives their life as long as it's not overtly harmful to me.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 03-23-14 at 06:49 PM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  10. #480
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,174

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    I read about evolution, animal behavior (humans are animals), and game theory. I tend to look at evolution from Dawkins' perspective, which is based on gene survival and includes individual actions, social actions, and the physical characteristics of the "meat machines" used for transporting and copying genes. There is a genetic basis for animal behavior and anyone who denies that doesn't know much about evolution. For example, many animals risk their own survival to warn others in their group of a predator. That isn't "social Darwinism" or "altruism", it's gene survival - because when virtually the entire population has this trait, the genes (individuals) in it tend to survive better than the population that doesn't have this trait. This natural selection extends to many, many kinds of behavior, including the social pressures we've talked about here. Again, it isn't "social Darwinism", altruism, or any of a number of other misnomers for this kind of behavior. It's simply natural selection at work.


    And just an FYI - one of my sisters has never been married or had children and is well over 60 at this point. I have no problem with her life choices at all and never have had. I guess the next time we talk I'll have to broach this subject with her. We've never talked about it because, quite frankly, it's none of my business how anyone's lives their life as long as it's not overtly harmful to me.
    Obviously humans are animals, and our instincts control our behavior as a matter of simple default. I might even accept that this is the level the majority of people operate at the majority of the time.

    But you can't simply ignore the other things our high intellects compel us to do. You can't compare us apples-to-apples with any other animal, because none come close to our brain structure. The closest is probably dolphins, and if you take a good look at them, you'll see they display some of the same evolutionarily meaningless behavior that we do, although not to the same extent.

    Humans -- some of them, anyway -- spend a great deal of their time doing things that have nothing to do with tribe survival altruism, reproduction, or self-preservation. Why do we make art? Why do we learn about the distant cosmos when, at least at first blush, we have no reason to believe this has any affect on us? Why do we do things for the sake of mental intrigue that are overtly risky to our lives, and don't offer any survival benefit to our "tribe"?

    Because we're just not that simple. You can't think of humans as though we just go into heat.

    We've got mental energy to burn, and we burn it in all kinds of ways that offer us nothing on the level of the selfish gene. Hell, half the point of trying to make life so easy for ourselves is to give us more time to do these evolutionarily meaningless things.

    And I might also note that Dawkins knows nothing about sociology. It is not his field of expertise, and he is not qualified to speak about it. He is also exceptionally poor at philosophy, and listening to him debate the religious on that level is embarrassing to me -- and I'm an atheist who agrees with him.

    Just because Dawkins is famous and is qualified in the field he actually knows something about (biology) does not make him an authority on all things. He is extremely ignorant about a great many subjects, regardless of how much he talks about them.

    But even ignoring all that, if you want to think of humans in such a simplistic way, the childfree serve a very clear purpose for the same reason altruism does. We spend much more of our lives working, and often working in very challenging and humanitarian fields. And if your argument were true, we would be appreciated by society for the same reason altruism is. The purpose we serve "the tribe" is quite obvious, even if it doesn't benefit our own genes.

    And yet, we are not. And we are especially maligned in societies that still suffer a lot of sexual repression and misogyny. Gee, what a coincidence.
    Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 03-23-14 at 07:06 PM.

Page 48 of 53 FirstFirst ... 384647484950 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •