I got a vasectomy five years ago, there was a small pain during the procedure which wasn’t too bad but one of my testes has a granuloma that can painful even after these years.
I only posted this to say that despite a literal pain in my ball, I also love sterility. Having a kid would be much more of a pain.
I’m not going to pretend to understand any discomfort or suffering you went through. You and I do not share the same “parts,” so I have no basis for comparison. I will say that I’m sorry you experienced what you did, and I hope that you are either fully recovered or on the road to recovery.
I just wanted to reply to your statement that “when it comes down to it, sterilization is a procedure of bodily autonomy.” When I was in early adulthood, I didn’t want children, but it’s not something I thought much about. As I got older, the fact that I could potentially reproduce started to feel increasingly wrong and disturbing; it wasn’t the way that my body was supposed to be. It’s why I’ve always loved the fact that people use the term “fixed” as a replacement for “sterilized.” When I finally got my vasectomy, it was a relief. I was “fixed,” “repaired,” “corrected,” whatever you choose to call it. There were some complications, arguably minor ones, but it did require going under the knife again. I was happy to do so.
While I have no idea if your feelings align with my own, you decided to take your life into your own hands and get sterilized. When it’s all said and done, the end result will be that your body is closer to the way you want it than before. There might be setbacks, but eventually the end result will be what you want it to be. Just wanted to pass along a bit of hope from a random internet stranger.
It’s the people that changed. It used to be common sense. There were places parents knew that you just didn’t bring kids. But now, parents are taught to be entitled. They demand to bring kids everywhere.
It's more likely to swing back the other way, in my experience. Entitled parents use their children as a weapon in public, but the attention often stops in private, when the parents want "me time" and still have a burdensome kid to take care of. The kid grows meek and people-pleasing to earn the parent's positive attention and grows emotionally stunted because "crying makes mom and dad mad, emotions are shameful."
It's still an absolute mess of course, but once a parent who shouldn't be a parent reaches a certain level of entitlement, the damage done causes things other than more entitlement.
As a parent I don't understand that need to bring the kids everywhere. I don't want my own kids running around while I'm trying to enjoy "adult" activities let alone any one else's.
I’d suggest that a minor contribution to this would also be stagnating wages; inflation; and increased cost of childcare. Now the ‘adult’ activities we want to enjoy are more expensive; we’re earning less money (in real terms); and childcare is more expensive, leading to a lot of people on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum to be faced with the choice of ‘take your kids or don’t go at all’.
I definitely agree with you though. Western societies have been becoming more individualistic and entitled and that’s likely the biggest cause. I just don’t think it’s the only cause. As with everything in life, the reasons why something happens are usually varied and can rarely be boiled down to one thing.
Individual selfishness is responsible for… People having children, raising them, and bringing them places?
Am I insane or does that just on its face not make any sense?
Your first paragraph is the actual reason here. It’s too expensive for a lot of parents to get a babysitter, so they need to bring their kids with them if they want to go do something. And for many people like me who work from home (I don’t have kids yet but the point stands) that one night every week or so that we go out to dinner is basically the only time I go to do anything fun outside the house that isn’t working out. When I worked in an office (which I ever want to do again) I’d go out to lunch with coworkers and occasionally do a happy hour after work, but that isn’t an option anymore.
If I had kids we’d be bringing them with us when we go out because it would be significantly cheaper than hiring a sitter for a few hours.
Individual selfishness is responsible for… People having children, raising them, and bringing them places?
Am I insane or does that just on its face not make any sense?
It has always been cheaper to bring a kid with you to something to hire a sitter.
Previous generations seem to have understood that having kids means you don’t get to do all the things you want to do all the time. Or, doing so will cost however much a sitter cost.
But, as an example, I was in a comically expensive restaurant not too long ago to celebrate a friend graduating law school. (Appies are 30+, entrees range in the 50s and it would be gauche to only get an entrees.) But, even in a lovely place some parents decided to bring their screaming child much to everyone else’s delight. The cost of a sitter would’ve been less than either of their meals, their wine or a fraction of what his suit cost. But they decided to keep that money and inflict their child on the rest of us. To me, that’s selfish.
I always thought of it like this. If the main purpose of the establishment is alcohol, children shouldn’t be allowed. So bars, breweries, etc. If a restaurant also happens to have a full bar, with bar tables (different than the regular restaurant tables) then kids should be allowed in the restaurant part only.
I know no one upholds anything like that, since I see kids all over breweries and bars in restaurants but it would be nice.
Personally, I’d pay extra for a completely child free eatery though.
I’d even settle for just “not demonized for not allowing children”. We have had some breweries here that have attempted to and parents just screech about how they’re not “family friendly”. Yes, that’s the point, it’s not a family friendly place. It’s a place for adults to come and drink, what is so bad about some of them choosing to be adult only?
Yeah, people seem to have forgotten that parenthood is a sacrifice. I’m in no way saying people who have children shouldn’t be allowed in public, but there is a time and place for kids. Personally, I wouldn’t want my kids around a bunch of drunk people, if I were a parent.
Exactly, I get you have kids and you have a hard time finding sitters and everything, but parents chose to have kids. It’s not some great secret that parenthood takes up time and means sacrificing these things, that’s why I’m choosing not to. I don’t view those as excuses personally, if you are a parent then you need to find someone to watch your kids if you want a night out, that’s the trade off. Not change everywhere you want to go into a “family friendly” place, or you know, go to a family friendly place.
But then they have to deal with other people’s kids. Yuck. Who wants that?!?!? Yes, I’ve heard parents say that, when in a not kid appropriate place, with their kids.
thats the case with any public transport: farts are unpredictable and the whole group have to bear with the emissions of a single passenger. one could make use of a 3M hepa mask if questionable odors are very bothering…
alot of airlines also make deportations, but probably in a less obvious way…anyway blame france that wants to bomb niger, and then the rest of european countries will have to bear the consequences, Italy in particular
Interesting.Their website is a standard flight booking affair, and they definitely sell tickets for children. They literally have a photo of a happy family on holiday as the first image you see.
Its a european company, i will look up the article link one moment . Plane has a separate part of the cabin where it house seperate 93 seats where only adults beyond 16 of age are allowed access to, for the extra premium of 40€ per seat.
I'd gladly pay that price to not have to listen to a baby crying for 10 hours from Amsterdam back home. That was probably one of the worst flights I've been on.
I know this is a few months old but I wanted to share some of my past because we have a lot in common. I was married to a man who, besides being cruel, told me he wanted kids two years in. I got married way too young…
I desperately tried to get sterilized but the military gyno told me (at 24) that I was too young to make that decision and that my husband might want kids, so she wouldn’t do it. There’s a lot more drama/PTSD involved in the middle, but eventually we had a messy divorce. It was the best thing that ever happened to me.
I got sterilized, no longer have periods, have an incredible sex life, have more friends, sleep in whenever I want to, and can travel. If I change my mind, I’ll foster so I can change a life that already exists. I had endometrial ablation and a bisalp, meaning I still have my uterus and ovaries, so no babies, but also no risk of organ collapse and my ovaries still produce hormones. Life is so much better. I’m really proud of you for sticking up for yourself. You’ve got this! I’m here if you need a shoulder or to vent.
Thanks for sharing your story, sounds like you’ve been through a lot. I’m lucky in that he was never cruel to me and the divorce was as smooth as I think it could have been. I have a gyno appointment coming up soon so I’m hoping to talk about my options for sterilization then.
That’s awesome! Yeah! I highly recommend Bilateral Salpingectomy with Endometrial Ablation. No periods, no cramps, no mood swings, and no babies! Don’t just get your tubes tied, get the bisalp to remove your fallopian tubes, because tied tubes can reconnect. One out of every 200 women who get their tubes tied instead of removed, end up pregnant. That is not a small number.
A childless person saying “I can get the same hit from cats and small dogs” is like a cis man saying “I can get the same experience as childbirth by performing a large bowel movement”.
But most men never want to experience childbirth, and that’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with that. Just like there’s nothing wrong with not wanting kids. But pets absolutely cannot replicate actual children, just like a bowel movement can never replicate the experience of childbirth.
Agreed. OP can just say, "Having kids isn't for me." And that's cool, we accept that. It sounds a bit like trying to justify the choice to themselves or at the very least help other be ok with the decision to not have kids. The pet analogy is over simplified. One thing I will say is that having kids of your own vs being around someone else's is very different. Being there through the grow and maturity into a functional human is the reward and frankyly it goes super fast. It felt like.yeaterday I was holding my kids as newborns and now they are in high school. The journey is the experience .To each their own on their choices.
Exactly, a child becomes an intelligent, mature adult. A person. A real person walking around, feeling things, talking to people, sharing knowledge and ideas and experiences. No part of pet ownership can emulate that.
Excuse me sir or ma’am, you are in the childfree community about being childfree. If you would like to participate in parenting conversations or discuss how great kids are, I’m sure there are places dedicated to that, but this is not it.
Friend, this is a forum website designed for discussion and interaction. If you want an echo chamber, I’m sure there are places dedicated to that, but this is not it.
Start your own private instance, only allow specific people in, close that shit up tight if you want.
Okay and my great uncle Fred took a dump that he insists was as difficult to pass as a human child. Since he’s talking about his experiences, not anyone else’s, he must be right, right? By your logic my uncle Fred genuinely knows what childbirth feels like, correct?
Or does the fact that he has never experienced childbirth exclude him from making such comparisons?
OP is saying that in their experience, holding a baby gives them the same hit of oxytocin as holding a cat or dog. OP has experienced holding both babies and cats and dogs. OP is talking about experiences that they have had. Your uncles was talking about taking a shit, an experience that he had, and giving birth, an experience that he has not had. That is the difference. OP is allowed to talk about their experiences. They’re not talking about other people’s experiences with children or claiming that their individual experiences are universal.
Holding someone else’s child is completely different from holding your own child that you created and gave life to. OP has never held their own child, and therefore cannot possibly say that pet ownership gives them the same satisfaction.
Op is talking about holding their pet, an experience they have had, and holding their child, an experience they have not had. Therefore they absolutely cannot try to compare the two.
All OP can say is that having pets gives them the same enjoyment as holding someone else’s baby, which is most likely absolutely true. But that’s not what was said. They tried to equate pet ownership to bringing and nurturing a life into this world and I’m sorry but that’s fucking ridiculous, period.
If someone feels the same about children and animals, and then decides to not become a parent as a result, that is a responsible choice. Not all parents like their children. Some parents develop a special bond but not all. Better for a person to have a few pets than create a human being they may end up losing interest in after a few months.
I agree with every word of that, except the first line. My point is that OP cannot possibly know if owning pets will provide them the same satisfaction as having children because they’ve never had children.
No one here is actually disputing what I actually said, because what I actually said is correct. I made a statement, and everyone threw their strawman arguments at me.
And you can’t possibly know how amazing it is to be without children then. Also you sound like someone who thinks forcing a lesbian to be with a man would correct her because she doesn’t know what she’s missing.
I’m sorry did you mistype? I can’t know what it’s like to not have children? Everyone knows what it’s like to not have children, no one is brought into this world already having children. What the fuck are you even trying to say?
And your sexuality comparison is stupid because sexuality is something you’re born with, and you can try the other side without permanently changing yourself, unlike parenthood.
So you’re saying an adoptive parent will never get the oxytocin experience that a biological parent would? How about my colleague of 7 years that had a surrogate give birth to her twins created by fertilization of her egg with her husband’s sperm. She had hemolytic anemia during her first pregnancy and almost died, so she couldn’t safely get pregnant again. Would she not get the oxytocin experience as well? She couldn’t breast feed but could bottle feed and do everything else.
And then there’s me raising my 3 youngest sisters from birth (less so with the eldest of the 3 that is 7 years younger than me, and 100% so with the youngest of the 3 that is 11 years younger than me). The babies (especially the youngest) slept in my bedroom while my mother slept on another floor of the house (narcissist mother with mental health issues). I was the one up in the middle of the night changing their diapers and feeding them. Do I not get that oxy hit bottle feeding my younger sisters, exhausted as an 11 year old changing diapers and rocking a crying baby to sleep at 3:30am, and experiencing the blissful joy of a sleeping baby that had just woken me up at a very dark hour? I got REALLY REALLY good at getting my younger sibs to go down for a nap to get some peace.
Another strawman argument. I never said anything about biology. Adoptive parents are still parents. Your siblings are still your siblings.
It’s still different than a child someone considers as “not theirs”.
And btw you were a child, you weren’t ready for that kind of responsibility and shouldn’t have had to do those things, and I’m genuinely sorry that you had to experience that, and I’m glad your siblings had someone in their life to look out for them. I’m sure that made all the difference to them.
The comment you’re replying to mentions the release of oxytocin when cuddling with an animal similar to oxytocin release when holding a baby. This is a proven fact. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6826447/#:~:….
You’re comparing taking a shit with the hours long process of labor and bringing a life into the world. The 2 are nowhere near comparably
The comment you’re replying to mentions the release of oxytocin when cuddling with an animal similar to oxytocin release when holding a baby. This is a proven fact. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6826447/#:~:….
You’re comparing taking a shit with the hours long process of labor and bringing a life into the world. The 2 are nowhere near comparable
Nah dude. If I had to be pregnant and have to handle a kid I’d resent them. I would understand that the chemicals that cause parents to have to care about their kids are just that, chemicals. They aren’t some magical feeling that comes out of nowhere. It’s an evolutionary trait to continue a species. I do not accept my role as simply biological. I refuse to be just another person doing something because of chemicals and biology.
“I refuse to be just another person doing something because of chemicals and biology.”
Then I’ve got some bad new for you. Everything you do is because of chemicals and biology. You felt the need to post this dumbass comment because of chemicals and biology. Everything that you have ever done and ever will do are because of chemicals in your brain telling you to do things. You will never outsmart these chemicals because you are these chemicals.
For all intents and purposes, they are magical feelings that come out of nowhere and make you feel happy and patient and full of love for your child.
Something which you clearly don’t understand at all, which only serves to further prove my original point, so I guess thank you?
They don’t want to “replicate actual children”. That much should have been pretty obvious. They want the good parts of affection without the lifelong implications.
childfree
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.