Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

My wife may have just gotten pregnant!


Komag

Recommended Posts

Now that women have a real choice in the matter for the first time in history, a large number of them choose not to have kids, and most of the diminishing number who do, make an intellectual decision, not an instinctual one.

 

-And then we could discuss about human intelligence more generally, since I'm very sure that our instincts still give us clues and affect us all the time. I wouldn't say that this kind of decision is purely intellectual, as it never is. The human intellect will never be free of instinct's effect.

 

Sure, many women decide not to have kids, but probably they still have dreams of it, silently affecting their disposition to the idea. I've seen many women who first claim that they'll absolutely never will have kids. And -bam- couple of years pass, and suddenly they are absolutely baby-sick (Broody).

 

But here we are. A bunch of guys talking about women getting kids. :laugh: This discussion definately requires female input for any credibility.

Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You're the one throwing the misogynistic stereotypes around. Now that women have a real choice in the matter for the first time in history, a large number of them choose not to have kids, and most of the diminishing number who do, make an intellectual decision, not an instinctual one.

 

Well, evolution will take care of that in the long run, and this is inevitable. :) After all, women who make a choice NOT to have kids, will also not spreading their genes, and this means that there will always be woman around wanting to have kids, which are in the advantage.

A gene branch that doesn't want to have offspring is dead. No matter how intelligent a choice it is supposed to have made. ;)

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, many women decide not to have kids, but probably they still have dreams of it, silently affecting their disposition to the idea. I've seen many women who first claim that they'll absolutely never will have kids. And -bam- couple of years pass, and suddenly they are absolutely baby-sick (Broody).

 

And there are also enough woman, who can't get kids for one reason or the other, and then claim that they don't want them anyway. "The grapes are to sour anyway" said the fox. ;)

 

But here we are. A bunch of guys talking about women getting kids. :laugh: This discussion definately requires female input for any credibility.

 

Yeah. Where is Angua, when you need her. :laugh:

 

Are there any other female forum members? Well, I would expect to, but they don't seem to advertise it. Maybe they are afraid of to much attention from us nerdy programmers. ;)

 

BTW: There is not really a point asking a women for her first hand experience. After all, if her instincts tell her to love babies, it wouldn't be any different then if she made the conscious decision to love babies. Same for men of course.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, evolution will take care of that in the long run, and this is inevitable. :) After all, women who make a choice NOT to have kids, will also not spreading their genes, and this means that there will always be woman around wanting to have kids, which are in the advantage.

A gene branch that doesn't want to have offspring is dead. No matter how intelligent a choice it is supposed to have made. ;)

 

Like I said, evolution doesn't apply to humans any more. We could just hire people from poor countries as incubators for our fertilised eggs, until we invent a mechanical womb to grow them in.

More and more people don't even look after their kids once they have them, they hire other people to do it.

 

Sure, many women decide not to have kids, but probably they still have dreams of it, silently affecting their disposition to the idea. I've seen many women who first claim that they'll absolutely never will have kids. And -bam- couple of years pass, and suddenly they are absolutely baby-sick (Broody).

And that is exactly my point. Our intellect easily overrides any instincts we have. We can choose whether to do things or not, we don't just do what we're programmed with, like animals, and now that women have a choice, they are choosing with their cerebral cortex, not their hypothalamus.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, evolution doesn't apply to humans any more.

 

I always find it funny when you say that, because I think you even believe that. Well, maybe not. :)

 

And that is exactly my point. Our intellect easily overrides any instincts we have. We can choose whether to do things or not, we don't just do what we're programmed with, like animals, and now that women have a choice, they are choosing with their cerebral cortex, not their hypothalamus.

 

:laugh: I think you must have a control problem. Otherwise you wouldn't be so pushing this "argument". :)

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our intellect easily overrides any instincts we have. We can choose whether to do things or not, we don't just do what we're programmed with

 

That's what we like to tell ourselves, certainly. Unfortunately what we like to think, and what is true, often fail to correspond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true. In the past, sex is the reason people had kids, that's an irresistible enticement for males, and it's generally not tied to a desire to have kids. Kids were an inevitable result of that. You really think women in the past had a choice of who they married or when they were fucked?

 

-Okay.

 

Our intellect easily overrides any instincts we have. We can choose whether to do things or not, we don't just do what we're programmed with, like animals, and now that women have a choice....

 

-Anyone see a contradiction? You speak about irresistible enticements, and intellect easily overriding any instincts. I'd still say we are hugely affected by our instincts. Humans are as programmed to have sex as animals are. Sure, we can select celibacy, but the programming is still there, governed by our instincts.

Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Oddity confuses is that the instincts are not 100% the same in all people. There is always a variation in any population. Otherwise evolution wouldn't work. Now it's IMO quite questionable if somebody "chooses" celibacy really does it because he can "easily" override his instincts, or wether his instincts are not as strong as in others, or wether his instinct is "the other way around".

And celibacy is a good example, because for many men choosing this it is a big challenge and it can not be met in many cases, or it's redirected.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's reasonable to compare the urge to have sex, which is an easy and immediate pleasure, to an apparent 'urge' to have children - something which won't happen for 9 months and then causes 15 years of responsibility and expense for you.

As I said before, the reason sex is pleasurable is to entice people to do it, and therefore have children as a result.

If there was an instinctual urge to have children, then sex wouldn't need to be pleasurable, people would do it anyway to get the babies they crave.

Remember these things developed in animals, and they aren't aware that having sex causes babies, they just do the sex because it's an instinct they have no control over.

Once the babies are born, THEN the mother has an instinct to look after them, but she does NOT have an instinct to have them in the first place, the sexual urge takes care of that part, and is all that's needed.

Humans are aware that sex cause the babies, but you are confusing the fact that when some women see a baby they go all gooey, with the idea that they have an irresistible urge to have them.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once the babies are born, THEN the mother has an instinct to look after them, but she does NOT have an instinct to have them in the first place, the sexual urge takes care of that part, and is all that's needed.

 

It seems to me that "women instinctively want to have children" versus "women instinctively want to have sex, and once this happens to result in children, instinctively want to look after them" is largely an academic distinction of no functional significance.

 

Besides, what you call an "intellectual" decision to have children (by both males and females) is still primarily based on emotion, even if it is slightly above the level of raw instinct. It's not like having children confers many practical advantages upon the parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course there's a difference. The difference is that the urge TO HAVE KIDS it's not instinctual, since it did not develop in animals. It's a human construct, and a very confused one.

Of course there are many purely practical reasons for having kids, such as using them as cheap labour, this was a very big boon in the past, using them to cement alliances, or ensure property and wealth are kept in families (marring cousins was almost ubiquitous until relatively recently) using them to look after you when your old, etc

And of course, also until relatively recently, kids were almost expected to die before adulthood anyway, so if you were doing it for emotional reasons, you were likely to be in for a big disappointment. They had to pop the things out on a production line just to make sure a few made it to age 16. Between being fucked and giving birth, women were never off their backs.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's reasonable to compare the urge to have sex, which is an easy and immediate pleasure, to an apparent 'urge' to have children -

something which won't happen for 9 months and then causes 15 years of responsibility and expense for you.

 

Suddenly I am happy you are not one of my parents... :o

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)

 

"Remember: If the game lets you do it, it's not cheating." -- Xarax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only have my sister and her kids as reference, they annoy and fight with one another all the time, and drive her mental. I don't mind visiting, but I seriously couldn't put up with 5 kids running around the house all day, making noise, breaking things, and generally getting into mischief and annoying me.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add at least one female perspective on it against any perceived norms: an ex of mine LOATHED children, never wanted to have them, raged (and found kinship with her feminist wiccan friends - there's fun dating!) about not being a "baby machine", and even asked me if I wanted her to (read: would help her by paying for it) get her tubes tied. This was not the ravings of a teenager or 21 year old who hadn't yet felt an urge - she was 33 at the time, and years later nothing has changed. And she loved to have sex. A lot.

 

Do miss her sometimes... well, parts of her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 33 year old nympo is exactly what you need as a teenage boy. A perfect match. I had to make do with girls who might give you a handjob if you begged for 3 weeks, it was your birthday, and said you had a terminal illness and might not make it to the next one. To get an actual shag would have required at least imminent nuclear holocaust.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course there's a difference. The difference is that the urge TO HAVE KIDS it's not instinctual, since it did not develop in animals

 

AH! So THAT's the reason why only humans have kids. I was wondering about this all my live. I guess these small baby spiders are just to small adults. ;):laugh:

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try reading what has been written before making a reply, otherwise you look foolish.

They do not have an urge to have babies, they have an urge to have sex. It is NOT the same thing, since they have no way of knowing that sex causes babies, they are unconnected everts to them.

Only humans know that sex causes babies, and now some of the less intelligent ones confuse the two things, as can be seen in this thread...

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have an urge to have an offspring. If sex wouldn't cause offspring, they also wouldn't have an urge for it. Pretty simple, except for you maybe. Evolution doesn't require that individuals know the conseqeuences of their action, only that they happen. Therefore it's pretty pointless to argue that it were different for animals and that they don't want to have offspring, because they do. That humans are aware of the consequences is helpfull, but doesn't really change the fact that they still have the urge for it and act accordingly.

Showing samples of individuals who don't follow such an urge for one reason or another, or don't even have it, is inconsequencials, because evolution doesn't operate on individuals as such, but on huge populations. Therefore the statistics don't change just because some super hero like Oddity manages to have no sex his entire life and is proud about it, because he thinks that's a sign of his superior willpower. :)

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only have my sister and her kids as reference, they annoy and fight with one another all the time, and drive her mental. I don't mind visiting, but I seriously couldn't put up with 5 kids running around the house all day, making noise, breaking things, and generally getting into mischief and annoying me.

That's your sister and her kids though. I bet spars kids don't do the same because they are probably well disciplined and well behaved.

I want your brain... to make his heart... beat faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have an urge to have an offspring. If sex wouldn't cause offspring, they also wouldn't have an urge for it. Pretty simple, except for you maybe. Evolution doesn't require that individuals know the conseqeuences of their action, only that they happen. Therefore it's pretty pointless to argue that it were different for animals and that they don't want to have offspring, because they do.

Animals don't have wants, only needs.

You're deliberately misunderstanding just to be obtuse. You always do this. It's the most pathetic way of trying to win an argument.

The reason sex gives a reward is so they'll do it. They don't want offspring, just sex. For animals, having babies has no reward at all. They just get in the way, become a safety hazard, mean the animal has to find even more food than usual, and generally make existence difficult. Animals cannot see the greater good for their species.

It's only for humans that having kids can be rewarding, because we have developed an easy safe existence, we have free time and excess supplies, and we can look into the future to see the rewards we can have by using them for various practical purposes I mentioned before.

This is all intellectual decision-making though, it's nothing to do with instinct. We have an instinct to have sex like all other species, and like all other species, we have a complete lack of instinct to have kids.

 

Showing samples of individuals who don't follow such an urge for one reason or another, or don't even have it, is inconsequencials, because evolution doesn't operate on individuals as such, but on huge populations. Therefore the statistics don't change just because some super hero like Oddity manages to have no sex his entire life and is proud about it, because he thinks that's a sign of his superior willpower. :)

 

Nothing kills your sex life more than getting married and having kids, so you'll know all about that.

There are monks living in remote Tibetan monasteries who get more action that a guy who's been married for 10 years and has 3 kids.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Animals don't have wants, only needs.

You're deliberately misunderstanding just to be obtuse. You always do this. It's the most pathetic way of trying to win an argument.

 

-So you stand behind your claims only to attempt to win another argument, with no interest to discover real insight from this discussion?

 

Arguing about this is then futile, as no one is probably going to change their views or bring anything new to the table.

 

I recommend us to cease, since there is clear evidence that this "discussion" has now caused people to start denounce each other's personal traits or contributions to the discussion. This is the moment when one of the discussion's participants have failed grieviously.

Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recent Status Updates

    • Petike the Taffer  »  DeTeEff

      I've updated the articles for your FMs and your author category at the wiki. Your newer nickname (DeTeEff) now comes first, and the one in parentheses is your older nickname (Fieldmedic). Just to avoid confusing people who played your FMs years ago and remember your older nickname. I've added a wiki article for your latest FM, Who Watches the Watcher?, as part of my current updating efforts. Unless I overlooked something, you have five different FMs so far.
      · 0 replies
    • Petike the Taffer

      I've finally managed to log in to The Dark Mod Wiki. I'm back in the saddle and before the holidays start in full, I'll be adding a few new FM articles and doing other updates. Written in Stone is already done.
      · 4 replies
    • nbohr1more

      TDM 15th Anniversary Contest is now active! Please declare your participation: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/22413-the-dark-mod-15th-anniversary-contest-entry-thread/
       
      · 0 replies
    • JackFarmer

      @TheUnbeholden
      You cannot receive PMs. Could you please be so kind and check your mailbox if it is full (or maybe you switched off the function)?
      · 1 reply
    • OrbWeaver

      I like the new frob highlight but it would nice if it was less "flickery" while moving over objects (especially barred metal doors).
      · 4 replies
×
×
  • Create New...