Aromantic Asexuals

A community for aromantic asexuals to connect and discuss, in whatever depth, aromanticism.
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Why aren't people allowed to question romance?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2  Next
AuthorMessage
Cilas



Posts : 7
Join date : 2010-08-22

PostSubject: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:21 pm

New thought for discussion.

This threat is partially inspired by a blog which looked at how romantic relationships became viewed as more important than other forms of relationships

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201009/the-couple-rises-historian-elizabeth-abbott-explains-why

I'm not sure whether this is common throughout most cultures, but I think that it can be said that, in the Western culture at least, there is an inherent assumption that everybody falls in love, and those who don't are to be pitied, or there is something else wrong with them.

Personally, I have to wonder why people who ask or believe that romance isn't for everybody automatically gets shut down, either being due to immaturity or whatever..

Does anybody have any ideas? Is it historical? Cultural? something else?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Admin
Admin
avatar

Posts : 22
Join date : 2010-08-16
Location : UK

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Mon Sep 27, 2010 10:02 pm

I've never thought about this before and I can't say I have a theory. The connect with women in the article makes sense to me - I can't recall many men who like the idea of marriage, wasting money like that has always seemed rather female.

I'm instantly reminded of the party in How to Murder Your Wife:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK0tmGS6Mr4

It is annoying when so many people presume we need to find a second half to be able to live contently. 'Second half' to me doesn't necessarily mean romance but great friendships too but plenty of people are happy alone and what's wrong with that? To me it seems a matter of two people feeling differently and one not understanding the other (i.e. not being romantic).
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://aromantics.forum-motion.net
Yulia



Posts : 16
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:04 pm

Admin wrote:
I can't recall many men who like the idea of marriage, wasting money like that has always seemed rather female.

A female would prefer wasting a sum of money once (and, in many cases, she has to stop wasting money on silly things after that), and a male, without wasting too much money, could 'just do it' with as many 'economy-class' women as he can. (Yes, it is not actual for aces. But it is not written on a man that he is asexual and not a run-away-after-each-new-girl maniac, so a woman would prefer a traditional way, i.e. a marriage, with him, too. Paying for the marriage has been used as a gesture to show that the relationship is serious, and who knows about different gestures of the kind?- it seems to me, nobody.) If you understand Russian, I can give you a link to a smart poem on the topic.

Admin wrote:
It is annoying when so many people presume we need to find a second half to be able to live contently. 'Second half' to me doesn't necessarily mean romance but great friendships too but plenty of people are happy alone and what's wrong with that?

Nothing at all is wrong until there remain young people, both intellectually and physically healthy enough to work and have normal kids, to keep it all going. And when there's a shortage of them, one easily understands what is wrong. There are no storks to bring a good follower to each free - and childfree -thinker, yeah? And life loses something when you and your culture have no continuation, doesn't it?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Almagest

avatar

Posts : 35
Join date : 2010-08-16
Age : 26
Location : Boulder, CO

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Sun Sep 18, 2011 1:36 am

Yulia wrote:
Nothing at all is wrong until there remain young people, both intellectually and physically healthy enough to work and have normal kids, to keep it all going. And when there's a shortage of them, one easily understands what is wrong. There are no storks to bring a good follower to each free - and childfree -thinker, yeah? And life loses something when you and your culture have no continuation, doesn't it?
Honestly, I think we have more than enough people on this planet. There's little chance of my "culture" going extinct.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
feather

avatar

Posts : 6
Join date : 2011-09-15
Age : 25

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:33 am

I honestly feel like the reason we can't question it is because it is so ingrained in our societies. We see it as the normal and we don't question it out loud. Crying or Very sad
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://acherontia-atropos.tumblr.com
Admin
Admin
avatar

Posts : 22
Join date : 2010-08-16
Location : UK

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:11 pm

Yulia wrote:
Admin wrote:
It is annoying when so many people presume we need to find a second half to be able to live contently. 'Second half' to me doesn't necessarily mean romance but great friendships too but plenty of people are happy alone and what's wrong with that?

Nothing at all is wrong until there remain young people, both intellectually and physically healthy enough to work and have normal kids, to keep it all going. And when there's a shortage of them, one easily understands what is wrong. There are no storks to bring a good follower to each free - and childfree -thinker, yeah? And life loses something when you and your culture have no continuation, doesn't it?

I don't mean "everybody stop having kids". I meant "we don't all need to have kids". As Almagest have said, there's far too many people about and - just a thought experiment - if we magically stopped everybody born in 1993 (pick any year really) from having children... nothing would really happen. There would still be loads of people, though there would be a lower rate of increase for that short term, and a higher amount of adoptions but it wouldn't destroy our society or our culture. (Besides I'm from England, we don't really have a culture.) We aren't ever going to be without young people.

That's all off-topic anyway, all I'm saying is that finding romance shouldn't be seen as something necessary. I'm glad it's evolved from finding somebody of the opposite sex to finding whoever (a step in the right direction is a step) but still.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://aromantics.forum-motion.net
Yulia



Posts : 16
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:02 am

Almagest wrote:
Quote :
There are no storks to bring a good follower to each free - and childfree - thinker, yeah? And life loses something when you and your culture have no continuation, doesn't it?
Honestly, I think we have more than enough people on this planet. There's little chance of my "culture" going extinct.
I would love to share your optimistic belief. But I have no reason to disbelieve my former compatriot's words (now he lives in Germany, and I, still, in Russia) about Arabian little kids spoiling goods in German supermarkets; their culture is different, so to say, and when their huge family goes shopping, at least abroad, nobody teaches children to behave themselves... Let it seem offtopic now. Some decades will pass, and the topic opened here and my replies may seem as close as "I fell down into mud" and "my clothes are dirty". (I'll answer Admin a little later, but these last words about the offtopic are also my answer to him.) But we surely can teach somebody who is not our own kid. Does that seem optimistic?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Yulia



Posts : 16
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:36 am

Admin wrote:
As Almagest have said, there's far too many people about and - just a thought experiment - if we magically stopped everybody born in 1993 (pick any year really) from having children... nothing would really happen.

Why "just a thought experiment"? You can't even imagine how you hit the point!!! I work with young people born in 1993 - I teach them in a university. They are much fewer in number in comparison with the years before, for it is exactly the year when many women 'with the brains' stopped bearing children (for a period of time) in Russia. Nothing magical, just economics. It's a long story to tell, but do believe me that it influences some aspects of my life directly! One aspect - perhaps you will laugh at it - is difficulties with kindergartens, because many of them were closed when there were not enough children. Now more kids are being born, and it takes 3 years to get a place in a kindergarten that survived the 'childfree' period.

Admin wrote:
Besides I'm from England, we don't really have a culture.
This very sentence is full of English culture.

Admin wrote:
That's all off-topic anyway, all I'm saying is that finding romance shouldn't be seen as something necessary.
You see, I just express another point of view on the same thing you were speaking of. Imagine that you discuss your personal right to use freons or to throw wastes into the sea, and I write you about environmental problems. Of course, if aberrations are not numerous they may be tolerated. Why, it is quite natural if a person leaves his/her used tin on the seashore - he/she has no sexual attraction to a dustbin. Smile

But if you don't mix romance and basic needs (i.e., if you are not against doing some prosaic things without a special inspiration), I share your opinion. One can live quite happily without any sexual partner, and especially without the idee fix of searching for such ('this one is bad, let me try a dozen more').
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Almagest

avatar

Posts : 35
Join date : 2010-08-16
Age : 26
Location : Boulder, CO

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 am

Yulia wrote:
Almagest wrote:
Quote :
There are no storks to bring a good follower to each free - and childfree - thinker, yeah? And life loses something when you and your culture have no continuation, doesn't it?
Honestly, I think we have more than enough people on this planet. There's little chance of my "culture" going extinct.
I would love to share your optimistic belief. But I have no reason to disbelieve my former compatriot's words (now he lives in Germany, and I, still, in Russia) about Arabian little kids spoiling goods in German supermarkets; their culture is different, so to say, and when their huge family goes shopping, at least abroad, nobody teaches children to behave themselves... Let it seem offtopic now. Some decades will pass, and the topic opened here and my replies may seem as close as "I fell down into mud" and "my clothes are dirty". (I'll answer Admin a little later, but these last words about the offtopic are also my answer to him.) But we surely can teach somebody who is not our own kid. Does that seem optimistic?
*shrug* I don't really care about culture mostly because I've never really had one. America (where I live) is an amalgam of numerous cultures to the point that I don't have a very distinctive one if I have one at all. So the idea of having kids to continue a culture just falls flat with me. Seems like a bad reason to have kids.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Vista9



Posts : 2
Join date : 2011-10-16
Location : UK

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:37 am

In the West the idea of romance, and with it the notion that out there somewhere is a someone who is ‘the one’ person for you, seems to me to have become ingrained in the culture since the romantic movement in the late 18th/early 19th century.

In my experience (I’ve lived in quite a few countries around the world) this isn’t so in, for example, many parts of Asia. In China they have a much more practical, down to earth idea of marriage – marry someone with money with good prospects and child bearing potential from the right social background and trust that romance will come along later. It’s the same, I find, in cultures with a formal tradition of arranged marriages or the equivalent, overwhelming social pressure acting as a matchmaker. These cultures also tend to be much more tolerant of men having mistresses. They routinely turn a blind eye to men frequenting prostitutes, but everybody knows what’s going on and it can be embarrassing to locals that this is sometimes rather obvious to outsiders. Thailand and Korea spring to mind as good examples.

It seems to me that in the individualistic West sexuals have become psychically emasculated. People talk of their ‘other’ or even ‘better’ halves, of ‘significant’ others, and assume that being single is an unsatisfactory temporary state that could never lead to wholeness or contentment. But ironically it’s the sexuals who seem to be permanently discontented! Once they have their ‘other’ half it’s not long before they need to talk to their friends or write to ‘agony’ aunts about spicing up their sex lives, which apparently don’t satisfy them for long. Either that or their eyes start roving and they need ‘a bit on the side’. Their disbelief at how anyone could be happy being single and sexless is not something that strikes them as odd - which is in itself bloody wierd given the distracted state of mind most sexuals seem to live in almost all of the time.

Sexuals strike me as being almost permanently het up and ill at ease with themselves; they hardly ever seem to be contented. Always chasing the next fleeting thrill, which hardly ever lasts long enough for them to calm down and relax for a while. (Some of them are settled, I think – my parents were lucky in this respect -but most of them aren’t.) The reason – in my opinion - that you are not allowed to question romance is that it at least partly obscures the unsettled, seething urge for sex which is never far from the forefront of consciousness in most sexuals. This restless obsession with sex might even disturb the people who are afflicted by it if it wasn’t at least partially obscured by the idealised, romantic fantasies that seem to promise endless, calming, lovey-dovey bliss – which will then supposedly be regularly interspersed with manageable and not overly excessive bouts of lustful excitement.

We’re not allowed to question romance because to do so would be like shoving a mirror right under the noses of a bunch of people who are determined never to really look at themselves – in terms of their sexual behaviour, I mean. Far from being manageable as their fantasies suggest, sexuals’ so-called ‘sex drive’ is an unrelenting compulsion that leads them to behave just like junkies who have lost control of their drug habits. They are needy, self-centred, selfish (I’ll love you if you love me back but otherwise you’re a heartless bitch/bastard) deluding and self-destructive. They usually hurt both themselves and those they ‘love’, and live in a state of helpless addiction they need to kid themselves they can escape from in order to lessen their sense of its reality – hence the never ending stream of romantic novels, rom-coms, and the incongruous ‘love interest’ in films not explicitly about romance, all of which have happy endings that promise an end to the emotional rollercoaster ride. But actually this only happens in real life when either extreme old age or death supervenes.

The sexuals’ biggest delusion of all is that what they feel is best described as ‘love’. In my opinion, what they feel is best described as ‘need’. For example, consider the lyrics of almost any so-called love song – is it really a love song? Or is it a need song? And while we’re at it, don’t these people have anything else to sing about?? Don’t they already have more than enough need songs? But no, they can’t get enough of them, can they? They’re totally addicted.

While need masquerading as love can act sweet and selfless if its rapacious demands are being satisfied, whenever this is not the case it reveals itself in its true colours: blind, compulsive, greedy, selfish, destructive and continually unsatisfied.

End of rant.

Well, I suppose the foregoing is slightly stereotyped and exaggerated for effect, in that not all sexuals are quite as hopelessly over-excited and strung out as I’ve described, but I still feel we’re well out of it. Being ‘in love’ describes a state of suffering that the poor sufferers are addicted to. Don’t question romance – it’s cruel. It’s like hiding cigarettes from a smoker. It’s just a pity that there aren’t more of us to create some romance-free zones, havens where we could escape from passively inhaling the sexed-up ,romance fuelled atmosphere of the West in the 21st century.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Yulia



Posts : 16
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Fri Oct 21, 2011 5:36 pm

Almagest wrote:
*shrug* I don't really care about culture mostly because I've never really had one. America (where I live) is an amalgam of numerous cultures to the point that I don't have a very distinctive one if I have one at all. So the idea of having kids to continue a culture just falls flat with me. Seems like a bad reason to have kids.

Well, Almagest, first of all, I really don't mean EVERY person has to procreate. I just think it advisable. Personally I was the only child in a family where lots of my aunts and uncles were too busy to have kids, and some of them, even to get married (perhaps they were aces; now they are either dead or too old), so I am the person to bring up their heirs (now I have 2 and hope to have 1 more). But if I had brothers and sisters, it could be different. BTW, when I was 20, I didn't feel it necessary to get married (which is the only suitable way for me to have a sexual partner) though I had already had strong romantic feelings twice. So, I am not trying to persuade you, just give some reasons.

As for culture, I mean the basis of what makes one special. It can associate with a nation/nationality, or family traditions, or even books/TV/other things like that, not necessarily nationality.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Almagest

avatar

Posts : 35
Join date : 2010-08-16
Age : 26
Location : Boulder, CO

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:11 pm

Yulia wrote:
Well, Almagest, first of all, I really don't mean EVERY person has to procreate. I just think it advisable. Personally I was the only child in a family where lots of my aunts and uncles were too busy to have kids, and some of them, even to get married (perhaps they were aces; now they are either dead or too old), so I am the person to bring up their heirs (now I have 2 and hope to have 1 more). But if I had brothers and sisters, it could be different. BTW, when I was 20, I didn't feel it necessary to get married (which is the only suitable way for me to have a sexual partner) though I had already had strong romantic feelings twice. So, I am not trying to persuade you, just give some reasons.

As for culture, I mean the basis of what makes one special. It can associate with a nation/nationality, or family traditions, or even books/TV/other things like that, not necessarily nationality.
There's still no guarantee that your progeny will carry on your culture, legacy, whatever you want to call it. Still seems like a bad reason to have kids in my opinion. *shrug*
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Admin
Admin
avatar

Posts : 22
Join date : 2010-08-16
Location : UK

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:00 am

Yulia wrote:
Admin wrote:
As Almagest have said, there's far too many people about and - just a thought experiment - if we magically stopped everybody born in 1993 (pick any year really) from having children... nothing would really happen.

Why "just a thought experiment"? You can't even imagine how you hit the point!!! I work with young people born in 1993 - I teach them in a university. They are much fewer in number in comparison with the years before, for it is exactly the year when many women 'with the brains' stopped bearing children (for a period of time) in Russia. Nothing magical, just economics. It's a long story to tell, but do believe me that it influences some aspects of my life directly! One aspect - perhaps you will laugh at it - is difficulties with kindergartens, because many of them were closed when there were not enough children. Now more kids are being born, and it takes 3 years to get a place in a kindergarten that survived the 'childfree' period.
I can see the economical issues something like that would first raise but it's always a complaint against schools that classes are too big and there should be more teachers per students.

Quote :
Admin wrote:
Besides I'm from England, we don't really have a culture.
This very sentence is full of English culture.
Touché.

Quote :
Admin wrote:
That's all off-topic anyway, all I'm saying is that finding romance shouldn't be seen as something necessary.
You see, I just express another point of view on the same thing you were speaking of. Imagine that you discuss your personal right to use freons or to throw wastes into the sea, and I write you about environmental problems. Of course, if aberrations are not numerous they may be tolerated. Why, it is quite natural if a person leaves his/her used tin on the seashore - he/she has no sexual attraction to a dustbin. Smile

But if you don't mix romance and basic needs (i.e., if you are not against doing some prosaic things without a special inspiration), I share your opinion. One can live quite happily without any sexual partner, and especially without the idee fix of searching for such ('this one is bad, let me try a dozen more').
Everybody has the personal right to do whatever they wish, they doesn't automatically mean they should be allowed to do it and that it's morally right. I have the freedom to kick a cat but it's harmful. Throwing waste in the ocean is harmful - I won't rant about it but it is. Not having a romantic relationship out of choice isn't harmful (there are exceptions but for the sake of simplicity let's say we're talking about somebody who is disinterested).

Though some people can have sexual attraction towards inanimate objects. Humanity is very surprising.

Personally I can't think of any logical to reason to have children. That's simply me though.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://aromantics.forum-motion.net
Yulia



Posts : 16
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:02 am

Almagest wrote:
There's still no guarantee that your progeny will carry on your culture, legacy, whatever you want to call it. Still seems like a bad reason to have kids in my opinion. *shrug*

Your progeny can't but have something in common with you. Though you can complain that this "mirror" is dirty and you cannot see yourself in it. Smile Other people will see the family likeness.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Yulia



Posts : 16
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:47 am

Admin wrote:
I can see the economical issues something like that would first raise but it's always a complaint against schools that classes are too big and there should be more teachers per students.

In Russia, a teacher in a state school has no right to teach a class with a number of pupils less than a standard one (I am not a school teacher, so I don't know the today's number exactly, but a few years ago it was 25 for a city class - the standard number of pupils is different for cities and the countryside). So, when there is lack of pupils, some teachers are fired, and some underpaid, and classes remain big. Schools with smaller classes are closed, and kids are brought to other schools. It seems to me, there used to be the same thing about kindergarten groups. Absurdity, of course.

But even if a school teacher had a right to teach 3 pupils per hour, this would be no reason for her/him to feel quite happy. These 3 pupils born instead of 25-30 will "cope" with all the work needed by the community (when they grow up, of course, and when their parents stop working and HOPE to have a pension) just as "well" as a polluted sea is as "good" for swimming and fishing as a clean one. That was my point when I compared this to the problem of ecology.

Admin wrote:
Not having a romantic relationship out of choice isn't harmful.
When one lives near a big big sea and pollutes it just a little, knowing nothing about lots of his/her accomplices, one can also think it is not harmful. I mean, the harm of such things can be noticed only when they're taken in a huge heap. But my words relate to the choice of not having kids, not to the question whether to have a romantic relationship before having a kid or not.

Admin wrote:
Personally I can't think of any logical reason to have children. That's simply me though.

I believe that's quite all right till a certain age. Oh... Embarassed sorry if it sounds offensive...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Almagest

avatar

Posts : 35
Join date : 2010-08-16
Age : 26
Location : Boulder, CO

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:53 am

Yulia wrote:
Your progeny can't but have something in common with you.
Not necessarily. I know people who have absolutely nothing in common with either of their parents.

Look, I see your point--if everyone stopped having kids, we'd be in trouble a generation or two down the road. But here's the thing: that will never happen. There will always be people having kids because they have unprotected sex or they want to "fix" their marriage or they want a mini-me or whatever other reasons people have for bearing children. I highly doubt that the small percentage of child-free people will somehow affect the numbers of future generations.

Also, because this needs reiteration: there are already 7 billion people on this planet. 7,000,000,000 people. That's far too many for this planet to sustain. For example, in 40 years, we'll run out of fossil fuels if we keep using them at our current rate. So forgive me for not sharing your concerns.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Yulia



Posts : 16
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:28 am

Almagest wrote:
Yulia wrote:
Your progeny can't but have something in common with you.
Not necessarily. I know people who have absolutely nothing in common with either of their parents.

Do they: (a) speak only a language their parents don't understand; (b) behave in everyday situations in such ways that their parents - and not only they - get mad, e.g. eat with their fingers only and then embrace others, steal little things just for fun, make bonfires in their room on the floor, cut throats of some animals so that smaller kids could see it, seduce every girl in the street, and so on? If not, please let's believe they DO have something in common with their parents. And if these parents (together with all their friends) were not parents, once they would have a chance of living together with SUCH people in one street.

Keeping to lots of tiny but necessary rules is an almost invisible part of a culture, and we don't notice how badly we need that for our comfort... until we get surrounded by those who don't keep to these rules!!! (Let me not say billions of them, one such troublemaker even per 100 people will be quite enough to disturb us.) And it is much easier to bring to life SUCH kids than well brought up ones, don't you agree? And if we stop having brought up kids, won't the % of 'easily-made' ones grow too high? Quantity is not the only thing, one must care for quality also, that's my point. And the problem is international, 'easily-made people' don't belong to certain nationalities only, that's the other point of mine. If you visit a jail or a young offender penitentiary institution, you'll understand it. I would prefer seeing badly made clothes in almost every shop than having the same thing about people. I see these tendencies (about clothes also Smile ) and dislike both.

Almagest wrote:
Also, because this needs reiteration: there are already 7 billion people on this planet. 7,000,000,000 people.

And do you know how many mammals there exist? And living things at all? Will our life be easier if we sit with trillions of gnats (or nice white mice, if gnats bring to mind unnecessary associations with killing) around and think this a reason for not having kids?

Almagest wrote:
For example, in 40 years, we'll run out of fossil fuels if we keep using them at our current rate.

If there is progeny with certain thinking abitites they could solve this problem (if our generation fails, of course, we are too busy with guns and cosmetics production). Though it is much easier to leave child rearing to those whose children could possibly care for cosmetics, or guns, or things much worse than that more than for development of science.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Almagest

avatar

Posts : 35
Join date : 2010-08-16
Age : 26
Location : Boulder, CO

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:54 am

Yulia wrote:
Almagest wrote:
Yulia wrote:
Your progeny can't but have something in common with you.
Not necessarily. I know people who have absolutely nothing in common with either of their parents.

Do they: (a) speak only a language their parents don't understand; (b) behave in everyday situations in such ways that their parents - and not only they - get mad, e.g. eat with their fingers only and then embrace others, steal little things just for fun, make bonfires in their room on the floor, cut throats of some animals so that smaller kids could see it, seduce every girl in the street, and so on?
Yes. (I know some really weird people.)

Yulia wrote:

Almagest wrote:
Also, because this needs reiteration: there are already 7 billion people on this planet. 7,000,000,000 people.

And do you know how many mammals there exist? And living things at all? Will our life be easier if we sit with trillions of gnats (or nice white mice, if gnats bring to mind unnecessary associations with killing) around and think this a reason for not having kids?
Let me elaborate. There currently 7 billion people on this planet, and in America alone, there are 300 million people who live so extravagantly that we would need five Earths to sustain that type of lifestyle. There are other lifestyles that require twelve Earths to be sustainable. Now, the sensible thing to do would be for everyone to adopt a lifestyle that doesn't drain the Earth of resources and then a global population of 7 billion people wouldn't be a problem. But people don't like change or altering their comfortable lifestyles. So, solution two: decrease world population by not having kids. Still difficult but not as much as the first solution.

Yulia wrote:

Almagest wrote:
For example, in 40 years, we'll run out of fossil fuels if we keep using them at our current rate.
If there is progeny with certain thinking abitites they could solve this problem (if our generation fails, of course, we are too busy with guns and cosmetics production). Though it is much easier to leave child rearing to those whose children could possibly care for cosmetics, or guns, or things much worse than that more than for development of science.

Yes, let's just push all of our problems onto our children. That'll solve everything since that worked out so well when our parents did that to us. =/
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Yulia



Posts : 16
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:54 am

Almagest wrote:
Yulia wrote:
Do they: (a) speak only a language their parents don't understand; (b) behave in everyday situations in such ways that their parents - and not only they - get mad, e.g. ... cut throats of some animals so that smaller kids could see it, seduce every girl in the street, and so on?
Yes. (I know some really weird people.)

Surprised Then, IMHO, it's their parents who are to blame. They missed their chances to influence their kids. In case (b), of course, more. Case (a) could be uncomfortable for the parents only, if they were so careless as never to speak with their babies. alien alien

Situation (a) is also uneasy for aged childfree persons dealing with younger people who don't think it necessary to learn their language when working for them. This sounds like badly written fantastic story in nowadays America. In Russia it sounds more true-to-life, for even now it is not an immigrant worker's duty here to speak with every old woman approaching him - "let her explain her problems with her fingers if she has no son to do the job". Well, it is not so fatal, immigrants who work with people here usually know Russian, but still there was a bill under discussion in Moscow that immigrant salespersons shouldn't speak their native languages at work, customers take offence: Question

Almagest wrote:
Let me elaborate. There currently 7 billion people on this planet, and in America alone, there are 300 million people who live so extravagantly that we would need five Earths to sustain that type of lifestyle. There are other lifestyles that require twelve Earths to be sustainable. Now, the sensible thing to do would be for everyone to adopt a lifestyle that doesn't drain the Earth of resources and then a global population of 7 billion people wouldn't be a problem. But people don't like change or altering their comfortable lifestyles. So, solution two: decrease world population by not having kids. Still difficult but not as much as the first solution.

Oh dear... I'd been re-reading my post about gnats and found it too murderous last time, but yours is even more... Don't you think it, to put it mildly, weird for humankind, and for yourself personally, to choose between changing a lifestyle and having a kid? For me it is like a dilemma, "Shall I put aside this candy/computer game etc., or will it be better to cut off my finger (or, rather, part of my brain)?" Not a matter of reasonable choice.

BTW, if a person has one or 2 kids only, he/she doesn't add to OVERpopulation. And those who add - why, 1-2 generations are enough to teach them not to do that. Advertisements - I mean, those of modern lifestyles - and so on, 'to break is easier than to build', as we say in Russian. Besides, bad ecology, stresses, age and some medicines make about 1/5 of families infertile, and their number may grow. Nature can take care of itself without anti-cultural choices of people (you gave no arguments against my thought that leaving procreation to those only who have no wish to educate their kids is anti-cultural Exclamation).

Yulia wrote:
Almagest wrote:
For example, in 40 years, we'll run out of fossil fuels if we keep using them at our current rate.
If there is progeny with certain thinking abitites they could solve this problem (if our generation fails, of course...).

Yes, let's just push all of our problems onto our children. That'll solve everything since that worked out so well when our parents did that to us. =/[/quote]

Didn't you notice my words, "if our generation fails"? We have a chance, yeah? And last but not least, we cannot say it's wrong that someone gave life - with all its problems - to us, can we? I think I am happy, i.e. I can feel happiness, and won't it be nice if someone feels it after my death? A smart solution to a problem may also make one feel happy.

Once again I'd like to press the point all these ideas don't jar with asexuality (absence of sexual desire) in me. As for aromanticism, I understand it as having no desire to do some things seeming funny to others and prosaic to us, which doesn't mean for me that these things are senseless at all. We may spend 30 minutes a day on food consuming instead of 3-4 hours' cooking (if we have other things to do) and have less kids than our ancestors did, but why stop doing all this altogether?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Almagest

avatar

Posts : 35
Join date : 2010-08-16
Age : 26
Location : Boulder, CO

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:22 am

Yulia wrote:
Almagest wrote:
Yulia wrote:
Do they: (a) speak only a language their parents don't understand; (b) behave in everyday situations in such ways that their parents - and not only they - get mad, e.g. ... cut throats of some animals so that smaller kids could see it, seduce every girl in the street, and so on?
Yes. (I know some really weird people.)
Surprised Then, IMHO, it's their parents who are to blame. They missed their chances to influence their kids.
lol! Oh, their parents tried to influence them. But there is only so much you can do if your kid's a psychopath. (No, I'm not kidding. I know a handful of psychopaths and they do all the things you listed despite their parents trying to stop them.)

Yulia wrote:
Almagest wrote:
Let me elaborate. There currently 7 billion people on this planet, and in America alone, there are 300 million people who live so extravagantly that we would need five Earths to sustain that type of lifestyle. There are other lifestyles that require twelve Earths to be sustainable. Now, the sensible thing to do would be for everyone to adopt a lifestyle that doesn't drain the Earth of resources and then a global population of 7 billion people wouldn't be a problem. But people don't like change or altering their comfortable lifestyles. So, solution two: decrease world population by not having kids. Still difficult but not as much as the first solution.
Oh dear... I'd been re-reading my post about gnats and found it too murderous last time, but yours is even more... Don't you think it, to put it mildly, weird for humankind, and for yourself personally, to choose between changing a lifestyle and having a kid? For me it is like a dilemma, "Shall I put aside this candy/computer game etc., or will it be better to cut off my finger (or, rather, part of my brain)?" Not a matter of reasonable choice.
Except that I don't consider a kid to be crucial like a finger or part of my brain. And I'm perfectly fine with changing my lifestyle. I'm saying that the majority of people are not comfortable with changing their lifestyles so the other solution is to not have kids. Or to at least be okay with other people not having kids.

I personally do not want to have kids because I can't stand the little monsters for long periods of time. Also, no kid deserves to be punished by having me as a parent. I'm not parent material. I know this about myself.

Yulia wrote:
you gave no arguments against my thought that leaving procreation to those only who have no wish to educate their kids is anti-cultural Exclamation.
I gave no arguments against it because I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. Maybe you could try rephrasing your thought so that I understand your point?

Yulia wrote:
Almagest wrote:
Yulia wrote:
Almagest wrote:
For example, in 40 years, we'll run out of fossil fuels if we keep using them at our current rate.
If there is progeny with certain thinking abitites they could solve this problem (if our generation fails, of course...)

Yes, let's just push all of our problems onto our children. That'll solve everything since that worked out so well when our parents did that to us. =/
Didn't you notice my words, "if our generation fails"?
Ah, no I did not. My apologies.

Yulia wrote:

Once again I'd like to press the point all these ideas don't jar with asexuality (absence of sexual desire) in me. As for aromanticism, I understand it as having no desire to do some things seeming funny to others and prosaic to us, which doesn't mean for me that these things are senseless at all. We may spend 30 minutes a day on food consuming instead of 3-4 hours' cooking (if we have other things to do) and have less kids than our ancestors did, but why stop doing all this altogether?
I'm not saying that we stop having kids altogether. That's impossible. People will still have kids for myriads of reasons. I'm just saying that people should be okay with other people deciding not to have kids. Especially when you consider our planet's dwindling natural resources.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Yulia



Posts : 16
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:31 am

Almagest, you see, when I hear a person with a head on the shoulders complain that he/she cannot possibly influence his/her own kid(s) and NEVER could do that, it seems to me something is missing either in the head or in the culture that 'operates' that head (now I mean ready-made opinions from the mass media). It reminds me of a mental illness when one cannot hold a spoon ("too heavy!") and do other necessities.

I know women (even working and without husbands) who managed to educate really mentally or psychophysically sick kids (not just 'psychopaths') so that the kids had satisfactory and good grades at school and behaved adequately there. Such a woman is my friend Olga. When she was single (and, it seems to me, she is an ace), she used to train a dog of such a breed that it could eat up a bad master. The dog was submissive and never bit anybody, though when I saw it for the 1st time I rushed away instinctively and nearly broke my toe. And Olga never was cruel to the dog. (I don't know exactly how she punished it for small faults, but she was strict, it was not like some people approach their kids: I never noticed you, now you've killed (robbed etc.) a man, and I'll half kill you!). After such a preparation for married life Shocked it was not so difficult for her to deal with JUST a hyperactive son with the infantile cerebral paralysis.

As for little monsters grown by someone else... I see your point, but I treat it just as "Doc, I won't hold a spoon because some guys here always drop theirs and cry it's hard work, and I am tired of these sounds". (If you - or people like you - can change your lifestyle not to add to dwindling the Earth, as you wrote, you - and they - surely could do the same about all prejudice against kids.)

Almagest wrote:
People will still have kids for myriads of reasons. I'm just saying that people should be okay with other people deciding not to have kids.

I meant the very thing in my answer to Admin, when I compared a personal decision not to have a single kid to throwing just one small piece of waste into the sea. If the sea is not visibly dirty yet, we can treat it okay (let's remember medieval mariners with their bottles - they REALLY could be treated okay, just like childfree people of our generation). Nowadays this 'human sea' is not too 'polluted' with such childfree decisions in the USA (and perhaps in some other countries friendly to qualified and intellectual immigrants), but negative consequences of this tendency can be seen in other places, like Russia or even Europe.

Almagest wrote:
Yulia wrote:
you gave no arguments against my thought that leaving procreation to those only who have no wish to educate their kids is anti-cultural Exclamation.
I gave no arguments against it because I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. Maybe you could try rephrasing your thought so that I understand your point?

Let me explain it like Socrates would study, with questions. But I'll ask more than one at a time.

1) Do you think everyone who has a kid has an equally strong wish, equal strength of will, equal capabilities, and so on, to educate the offspring? (If you do, ignore other questions.)
2) Who do you think would have more kids nowadays: a person with a strong wish (and 'so on') to educate them properly, or vice versa? I mean on the average, not exceptions.
3) Do you agree that too many 'little monsters' (not educated properly) could gradually spoil a society as they grow up? (Let's not consider different types of corruption, of 'being a monster', to make the question easy. Let's just agree that a quiet person who kills somebody just because he is dull and has a job too good for him/her - e.g. a flying control officer, a pilot, or a surgeon, - is a monster too. A quiet monster. Sometimes even more dangerous than a maniac. Or - do you not agree here?)
4) Would you rather 'push our problems' (those we won't solve on our own, of course) to a society with the majority of grown-up 'little monsters' whose parents were not able to educate them properly, or to a better type of society?

Almagest wrote:
I'm not saying that we stop having kids altogether. That's impossible.

Neither am I. Those who forget even to buy condoms (to say nothing of books and good food for children) will never stop. But would you like to deal with THEIR OFFSPRINGS ONLY? E.g., when you travel by plane, or even on horseback, and a horse is scared at their behaviour? affraid And other people have a tendency to have less kids than used to be traditionally normal.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Almagest

avatar

Posts : 35
Join date : 2010-08-16
Age : 26
Location : Boulder, CO

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:58 pm

Yulia wrote:
Almagest, you see, when I hear a person with a head on the shoulders complain that he/she cannot possibly influence his/her own kid(s) and NEVER could do that, it seems to me something is missing either in the head or in the culture that 'operates' that head (now I mean ready-made opinions from the mass media). It reminds me of a mental illness when one cannot hold a spoon ("too heavy!") and do other necessities.
I have my personal experiences and you have yours (Olga for example). I know from my own personal experiences that some parents have done their very best to raise their kids to be upstanding citizens but it doesn't work. I'm saying that not every parent will be able to influence their child. It's not for lack of trying. These parents have run themselves ragged trying to raise their kids.

Yulia wrote:
If you - or people like you - can change your lifestyle not to add to dwindling the Earth, as you wrote, you - and they - surely could do the same about all prejudice against kids.
You're missing my point. I'm saying that most people don't want to change their lifestyle in the first place. They certainly can, but they don't want to, so they don't change. It's unfortunate. (I'm not sure what this "prejudice against kids" is that you mentioned.)

Yulia wrote:
Almagest wrote:
People will still have kids for myriads of reasons. I'm just saying that people should be okay with other people deciding not to have kids.

I meant the very thing in my answer to Admin, when I compared a personal decision not to have a single kid to throwing just one small piece of waste into the sea. If the sea is not visibly dirty yet, we can treat it okay (let's remember medieval mariners with their bottles - they REALLY could be treated okay, just like childfree people of our generation). Nowadays this 'human sea' is not too 'polluted' with such childfree decisions in the USA (and perhaps in some other countries friendly to qualified and intellectual immigrants), but negative consequences of this tendency can be seen in other places, like Russia or even Europe.
HAHAHAHA. Being childfree is not popular in the USA. I get so many people who talk to me exactly the way you are right now. Trying to convince me that being childfree is wrong because of the fate of the species or some such crap like that. I'm sick of it.

Yulia wrote:

1) Do you think everyone who has a kid has an equally strong wish, equal strength of will, equal capabilities, and so on, to educate the offspring? (If you do, ignore other questions.)
No. I know some people who love their kids more than anything and I know some people who couldn't care less about their kids. Those parents would be glad if their kid ran off.

Yulia wrote:

2) Who do you think would have more kids nowadays: a person with a strong wish (and 'so on') to educate them properly, or vice versa? I mean on the average, not exceptions.
I honestly don't know. I haven't looked at the statistics lately to see who's having kids and who isn't. But I would say people who have unprotected sex have more kids nowadays. I don't think "having a strong wish to educate them properly" is a major reason (it might be for some people but not for the majority).

Yulia wrote:

3) Do you agree that too many 'little monsters' (not educated properly) could gradually spoil a society as they grow up?
I think that's already happening.

Yulia wrote:

4) Would you rather 'push our problems' (those we won't solve on our own, of course) to a society with the majority of grown-up 'little monsters' whose parents were not able to educate them properly, or to a better type of society?
I think our current society should solve as many problems as possible. After that, I don't care what happens since I'll be dead by then. But if I have to choose, I guess I'd prefer that any leftover problems would go to a society that can solve them. That may be a society of "monsters" or it may not. I don't know.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Yulia



Posts : 16
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:51 am

Happy New Year! santa

Almagest wrote:
I'm saying that not every parent will be able to influence their child. It's not for lack of trying.

Not always for lack of trying. Sometimes late beginning is the thing (even pregnancy may be the time to influence - e.g. if a pregnant woman goes to sleep too late, like I did, she may have problems with her kids' early rising). Sometimes other problems. But - it is just like surviving: some people don't manage to survive (for different reasons), but I don't think it a sufficient reason for suicide. - Imagine me visiting a Japanese culture fans' site and saying this to a person dreaming of harakiri. No One can love Japan and avoid ritual suicide. Aces can remain themselves and have kids as well.

Almagest wrote:
I'm not sure what this "prejudice against kids" is that you mentioned.
Oh, it's just the idea that kids are something like monsters.

Yulia wrote:

2) Who do you think would have more kids nowadays: a person with a strong wish (and 'so on') to educate them properly, or vice versa? I mean on the average, not exceptions.
Almagest wrote:
I honestly don't know. I haven't looked at the statistics lately to see who's having kids and who isn't. But I would say people who have unprotected sex have more kids nowadays. I don't think "having a strong wish to educate them properly" is a major reason (it might be for some people but not for the majority).

I completely agree here! So, we can guess that kids of those who don't care about their education make up the growing majority. If 1 person pours wine into a barrel, and 10 others pour water, wouldn't it be nice for 2-3 more persons to pour wine there - if they all are to drink from it and won't like to drink almost pure water, of course?

Yulia wrote:

3) Do you agree that too many 'little monsters' (not educated properly) could gradually spoil a society as they grow up?
Almagest wrote:
I think that's already happening.
Oh! You notice that even in the country where being childfree is not popular! And if it were popular, especially among educated people, this spoiling process both of us dislike would be more swift. Isn't it daring to add to slowing down the process? Those who have kids with an intention to educate them do slow down the decay.

Of course, another way out is to influence other people's kids, but the most suitable age for the most real influence is under 3, a bit worse is the age from 3 till 7, and parents can do much more with such little kids than any teachers.

Yulia wrote:

4) Would you rather 'push our problems' (those we won't solve on our own, of course) to a society with the majority of grown-up 'little monsters' whose parents were not able to educate them properly, or to a better type of society?
Almagest wrote:
... if I have to choose, I guess I'd prefer that any leftover problems would go to a society that can solve them. That may be a society of "monsters" or it may not. I don't know.
But can 'monsters', or, to put it more precisely, not quite educated people solve any serious problems if they are an overwhelming majority in the society?

Almagest wrote:
I don't care what happens since I'll be dead by then.
What is a person? A bundle of mental states, wishes, likings, habits, and so on. The exact combination of all this cannot be repeated after its death (at least now), but a kid is a strange recombination of 2 such sets, with rather surface additions from outside, and if one choses a significant other properly, something of their personalities will exist after their deaths. (A bad choice can kill some significant part of you in a kid - it is difficult to take after both a cat and a dog, so to say.)

Writers, film makers etc. can make long-lasting chains of their mental states. But this will work only with those who are essentially like them (if you are against the formula "who belong to the same culture (or subculture)", let me word it in such a way). - I don't think it necessary to leave something or somebody like me just for the sake of it, though the idea that someone can be as happy as you, almost in the same detail, but after you, is pleasant; but, it seems to me, I have already shown why it is really necessary to have people capable to keep the best of this civilization after us.

Perhaps it is aces who can cope with procreation best of all nowadays. They surely won't have an unwanted pregnancy living as a couple. No risk at all. Only wanted ones! (In wilder times, when too many babies died, that wouldn't be enough, but now it is best.)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Almagest

avatar

Posts : 35
Join date : 2010-08-16
Age : 26
Location : Boulder, CO

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:37 am

Yulia wrote:

Almagest wrote:
I'm saying that not every parent will be able to influence their child. It's not for lack of trying.
Not always for lack of trying. Sometimes late beginning is the thing (even pregnancy may be the time to influence - e.g. if a pregnant woman goes to sleep too late, like I did, she may have problems with her kids' early rising). Sometimes other problems. But - it is just like surviving: some people don't manage to survive (for different reasons), but I don't think it a sufficient reason for suicide. - Imagine me visiting a Japanese culture fans' site and saying this to a person dreaming of harakiri. No One can love Japan and avoid ritual suicide. Aces can remain themselves and have kids as well.
Oh good grief. Once again, you are completely missing my point. You said that having kids is a way to pass on culture. So I said that not every parent can influence their kid. This is not about aces having kids. This is about people having kids in general. (Which is way off topic but I don't care.)

Yulia wrote:

Almagest wrote:
I'm not sure what this "prejudice against kids" is that you mentioned.
Oh, it's just the idea that kids are something like monsters.
Ah, okay. I guess that would be a prejudice of mine. Razz

Yulia wrote:

Almagest wrote:

Yulia wrote:

2) Who do you think would have more kids nowadays: a person with a strong wish (and 'so on') to educate them properly, or vice versa? I mean on the average, not exceptions.
I honestly don't know. I haven't looked at the statistics lately to see who's having kids and who isn't. But I would say people who have unprotected sex have more kids nowadays. I don't think "having a strong wish to educate them properly" is a major reason (it might be for some people but not for the majority).
I completely agree here! So, we can guess that kids of those who don't care about their education make up the growing majority. If 1 person pours wine into a barrel, and 10 others pour water, wouldn't it be nice for 2-3 more persons to pour wine there - if they all are to drink from it and won't like to drink almost pure water, of course?
Whoa, what? That's not what I'm saying at all. I just think people who have unprotected sex have more kids nowadays. I said nothing about education. I'm sure that people who have unprotected sex still want what's best for their kids and desire them to get an education. But I don't think most people have kids just so they can educate them.

Yulia wrote:

Almagest wrote:

Yulia wrote:

3) Do you agree that too many 'little monsters' (not educated properly) could gradually spoil a society as they grow up?
I think that's already happening.
Oh! You notice that even in the country where being childfree is not popular! And if it were popular, especially among educated people, this spoiling process both of us dislike would be more swift. Isn't it daring to add to slowing down the process? Those who have kids with an intention to educate them do slow down the decay.

Of course, another way out is to influence other people's kids, but the most suitable age for the most real influence is under 3, a bit worse is the age from 3 till 7, and parents can do much more with such little kids than any teachers.
People are uneducated in America because our school system is fundamentally broken. It has nothing to do with people being childfree or not.

Yulia wrote:

Almagest wrote:

Yulia wrote:

4) Would you rather 'push our problems' (those we won't solve on our own, of course) to a society with the majority of grown-up 'little monsters' whose parents were not able to educate them properly, or to a better type of society?
... if I have to choose, I guess I'd prefer that any leftover problems would go to a society that can solve them. That may be a society of "monsters" or it may not. I don't know.
But can 'monsters', or, to put it more precisely, not quite educated people solve any serious problems if they are an overwhelming majority in the society?
All you need is one smart person to manipulate the uneducated masses.

Yulia wrote:

Almagest wrote:
I don't care what happens since I'll be dead by then.
What is a person? A bundle of mental states, wishes, likings, habits, and so on. The exact combination of all this cannot be repeated after its death (at least now), but a kid is a strange recombination of 2 such sets, with rather surface additions from outside, and if one choses a significant other properly, something of their personalities will exist after their deaths. (A bad choice can kill some significant part of you in a kid - it is difficult to take after both a cat and a dog, so to say.)

Writers, film makers etc. can make long-lasting chains of their mental states. But this will work only with those who are essentially like them (if you are against the formula "who belong to the same culture (or subculture)", let me word it in such a way). - I don't think it necessary to leave something or somebody like me just for the sake of it, though the idea that someone can be as happy as you, almost in the same detail, but after you, is pleasant
Again, I don't care. I'll be dead. Nothing you say will change this fact: I. Don't. Care.

Yulia wrote:
but, it seems to me, I have already shown why it is really necessary to have people capable to keep the best of this civilization after us.
I remain unconvinced.

Yulia wrote:
Perhaps it is aces who can cope with procreation best of all nowadays. They surely won't have an unwanted pregnancy living as a couple. No risk at all. Only wanted ones! (In wilder times, when too many babies died, that wouldn't be enough, but now it is best.)
There are people who have unexpected pregnancies and end up loving their kids and wanting the best for them. There are other people who desperately want a child, get pregnant, and then end up wishing they hadn't had the kid in the first place. Sexual orientation and unwanted pregnancy have nothing to do with "coping with procreation."
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Yulia



Posts : 16
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:19 am

[quote="Almagest"]
Almagest wrote:
Oh good grief. Once again, you are completely missing my point. You said that having kids is a way to pass on culture. So I said that not every parent can influence their kid. This is not about aces having kids. This is about people having kids in general. (Which is way off topic but I don't care.)
Sorry, but I wrote about 2 ideas here. First, I answered you about the problem you'd mentioned, and then I thought it was an off-topic and added an explanation why I wrote all that at this site. (Or else some reader could think I was calling upon aromantic asexuals to be romantic and sexual. In no wise! It's not necessary for what I was writing about.) That's how this misunderstanding happened.

But of course I've got your point. To sum up my answer, having no kids is a civilized sort of suicide, no matter what reasons for suicide can be thought up. It's just my opinion, of course, and let's agree to differ about this idea.

Yulia wrote:
I completely agree here! So, we can guess that kids of those who don't care about their education make up the growing majority.
Almagest wrote:
Whoa, what? That's not what I'm saying at all. I just think people who have unprotected sex have more kids nowadays. I said nothing about education.

I meant, when a person doesn't care to protect sex (I surely didn't mean "ONCE in his life"; no, systematically), he/she usually doesn't care about more serious things (like kids' education, giving up bad habits etc.) either. I didn't mean highly educated people of ultra-religious or some other non-typical views (we can't say they DON'T CARE, it's their choice! besides, such cases are relatively rare, at least in Russia and Europe - don't know how it is in the USA). Of course there are exceptions. A murderer can turn into a saint, and a couple of drunkards/drug addicts with 10 kids, stop drinking/taking drugs and bring up their last son (produced after years of abstinence) so that he becomes a great scientist. Such exceptions are not taken into account by statistics.

Almagest wrote:

All you need is one smart person to manipulate the uneducated masses.
And how would you manipulate MASSES when the last computers and other devices, say, phones were broken years ago, and the last persons able to repair something died even earlier, having no followers? Rulers of ancient times didn't manipulate such huge masses as there exist now, and as will exist - thanks to those who don't care. Smile (Or - okay, let's imagine there remained people able to repair something, but they all emigrated to a more successful, at that historical moment, country. History is changeable. And you cannot join them, they managed to do it when planes didn't crash so often. Crying or Very sad )

Almagest wrote:
I'll be dead. Nothing you say will change this fact: I. Don't. Care.
About having somebody continuing and replacing you, I can agree. To care or not, it is up to you. But as for the anti-utopia I've depicted... an average life length is growing (are you sure you won't reach the age of 150, e.g.?), and young people of nowadays may see it with their own eyes when they are old. Perhaps a bit milder, at first.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   

Back to top Go down
 
Why aren't people allowed to question romance?
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next
 Similar topics
-
» People who donated to the March/April fund raiser for Urth
» this funny Indian people
» Question About Gladiator beasts.
» Hey, people! Here I am! Vanesa, from Argentina!
» Dark Fusion / Mirror Force question

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Aromantic Asexuals :: Community :: Aromantic Discussions-
Jump to: