Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obviously not just for procreation, but it also seems kind of obvious that this is its main intended purpose. Prior to the 20th Century this was obvious to everyone - no sex, no offspring = population decline. High death rates quickly reminded you of this if you had any doubts.
Now people are so divorced from nature and their own biology and think its simply for recreation.
Sorry but I look at things from a much longer historical time perspective. Sure it's fun, and I have non procreative sex too, but to deny that procreation isn't its main purpose is delusional. My opinion is that at one time or another in a marriage, sex should be open to creating new life.
I was never much into sleeping around anyways. I always sought out monogamous relationships from the get go. I always thought that all those people around me living a hedonistic lifestyle were pretty tacky and lacked discipline and self-restraint. Sorry but I've always felt that way, call me an elitist snob.
Prior to the 20th century you know what else was obvious to everyone? That Tobacco smoke enimas were good for you, syrup containing heroin for hyperactive kids helped calm them down, and "female hysteria" was a real diagnosis and thought to afflict as many as 1/4 of all women. So your claim that we knew better back then does not hold water. We are supposed to get smarter as time goes on.
Just because you can have kids it does not mean you should. Not everyone who has kids wants them. So no, you are wrong when you say "one time or another in a marriage, sex SHOULD be open to creating new life" First of all, it seems in your statement you are saying all marriages if that is what you are saying you are wrong there.
The second thing that bothers me about your statement is the word "should" which a quick peek at the dictionary says:
Should (shood) must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency):
People SHOULD have kids if it suits them and their circumstances not because of some societal pressure by baby hungry people that cannot understand how an unwanted baby (even by one parent) does more damage than not having that child at all.
So no I will not call you an elitist snob (not sure that word means what you think it does but whatever) but what I will say is your views are antiquated (you do realize that overpopulation is a more real danger than underpopulation, right?) and downright obsolete
This is a rough situation. Either you coddle him into how kids would help, or move away and marry another guy who is OK with having kids.
I think the first is possible. Most guys love sex, just not kids. He will mostly fall for it. If he doesn't, then ditch him and just move on to a guy who wants to have kids.
It has nothing to do with what I can "stand". This is a discussion forum. You put forward a point - I am merely discussing that point and showing why it is a fail.
At no point did I judge you. I am judging what you _said_. Thats entirely different.
Last time I checked this was a discussion forum. The user made a point - and I am merely discussing the failures in that users point.
If this bothers you then I have little advice for you - except to suggest that maybe a forum format is not the one for you. Have you considered Blogs?
having a child is more than agreeing to buy a house, or paint the bedroom lavendar, it is a completely and permanently life altering, to never be the same (could be better, could be worse, but not the same), exceptionally expensive, 20+ year commitment (really life long) where everything else takes a back seat.
Indeed. Parenthood (or not) is the one non-negotiable item. If the wife announces to the husband that they should convert to a some austere religion, abandon all of their property, and become mendicant missionaries in central Africa,.... well, that's a rather momentous change, but conceivably the husband might agree. It's largely reversible. And only two lives are involved: those of the husband, and the wife. But in the case of children, a third life is involved: that of the child. And whereas the wife and the husband had the option of choice - whether to create new life, or not - the child had no such option. He/she was simply born, no questions asked, no choice given. This BTW is my reason for anti-natalism
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
So, still no OP?
Good point. The original posting instigated heated debate on reproductive imperatives and the meaning of marriage, but the OP's response is conspicuously absent. Was it just a provocation?
If the husband didn't want to have children, why didn't he have a vasectomy?
We had that conversation about 10 pages ago or more. Some guys have performance troubles after getting snipped. Maybe her husband was concerned about that. That was the best guess. OP's never come back to the thread.
Oh okay, gotcha I thought you meant it was possible to pass on genes without anyone in the family ever reproducing.
I was like "What? We aren't earthworms??"
I'm baffled that someone would question the point of having children if his children never reproduced. My mother knows that I don't want children. My brother married an older woman and will never have children. I'm 100 percent certain that she has never questioned the point of bringing us into this world. (Although sometimes when we argue, she might question why she hasn't taken me out of it yet )
I agree. I have one child. She doesn't want children. I don't question having her because of that! Becoming a grandmother is not one of my goals in life. My sister has five grandkids and my late brother's daughter had a baby last year. I'll borrow them if I get the urge to be grandmotherly. Or great-auntly.
Thank you for saying that I have had enough and I left. But he gives a lecture about meditation on some another post. .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought you meant it was possible to pass on genes without anyone in the family ever reproducing. 
"
)
.
