Snipped? Honest About It? Other Variations?

33 comments

• shadowcat

  •

  9 years ago

  Got snipped 37 years ago after having 2 kids. No regrets.
• georgmicrodong

  •

  9 years ago

  My vasectomy is now of legal drinking age. After our third, I had it done (at taxpayer expense, just so you know; I was in the service at the time). I have no regrets and no desire to have it reversed. As for your #5, I have reassured a couple after condom breakage, but I don't make it a point of mentioning it, since I have no plans to bareback anyone else. The MILF knows now, and she's been considering us going raw since she found out. I have to admit, I'd consider it with her.
• JohnSmith69

  •

  9 years ago

  I guess this makes 5 times today but I have never used a condom with either DS. You can't have a true GFE with a condom. But I do wear one to fuck the others cause I don't want my dick to fall off. I got snipped years ago after my last child was born. Never regretted it. All of my dancers know that I'm snipped. It makes it easier to convince them to go bareback cause even though they take bc pills I don't think they keep up with them.
• ATACdawg

  •

  9 years ago

  Snipped in 1986 after my second daughter was born - no regrets. She had handled all the contraception issues to that point and it was my turn. BTW, dancers my be hesitant even if they are on bc because none of them are perfect even if followed to the letter. Witness my first daughter who was born 18 months into our marriage, nine months ahead of schedule. Sometimes God sees an egg so good He won't allow it to be wasted, lol. I was talking to a dancer one night, and I jokingly said that she'd be safe with me because I had been snipped. She told me that a guy friend of hers had told her that he had been snipped and so they proceeded to have sex. A couple years later the guy confessed that he had lied to her. A seriously asshole thing to do!
• san_jose_guy

  •

  9 years ago

  Interesting. No one here is claiming to have had a vasectomy before having any children, or at a very young age, like for example Andrew Vachss did. As far as #5, I do think that this is the most interesting facet. I mean, I don't know how civvies would respond if they were told. I'm not speaking about sex right then and there, I mean how they would look at the guy with that knowledge. But then as most agree that condoms are necessary, at least most of the time, for STD prevention, then there is no reason to talk about it. And besides, being the holder of a secret gives one power, as then you can chose when and if to disclose it. And if this sounds devious or manipulative, consider that all it really amounts to is getting laid a bunch of times by a girl who probably would not want to marry you if she knew. This is nothing compared to the shit that women pull on guys on a daily basis. I mean when you get into this area you can always tell if they are lying just by seeing if their lips are moving. [view link] Back when I was married my wife and I would sit in bed and watch the 11pm news. I would always explain to her, "Here we will get to see the police cars and their lights and learn about all the destructive things that men do. But women are just as destructive. It's just that they do it in different ways, so it does not result in police and jail. But they are just as destructive nonetheless." [view link] In a book I read many years ago a doctor was saying that lots of men in second marriages end up trying for reversals. Some end up making multiple attempts with the latest in micro-surgical techniques. But this doctor felt that most of these guys were secretly hoping for failure. Dr. George Denniston, long involved with Planned Parenthood, says that vascectomy really is an act of kindness and compassion which a man can make. He says this because the risk of contraceptive failure is always there. And then whether intentional or not, pregnancy still carries a substantial lethal risk, especially with tubal pregnancy. [view link] As far as I am concerned, any ethical steps we can take to lower the birth rate are most desirable. Also, I believe that in future times women will start to be held for responsible for their oopsing. Part of the issue I think is just that women are wired up for pregnancy. I mean for them, consenting to sex is at least nominally consenting to pregnancy. They are not rational, and men are not rational either. So we need to make sex safe. No one seems to have taken any interest in my multiple postings about engaging in research to develop ideal contraception. Besides being 100% safe, reliable, and reversible, and not requiring tight time tables, it is also 100% undetectable. So either party has 100% effective and 100% private veto power over conception. So you don't need to worry about what they say or what they do. You don't have to trust them, because it doesn't matter. You just take care of yourself. Thanks for giving me the wisdom of all of you guys' experience, SJG Jimi Hendrix Experience performs at Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductions 1992 [view link]
• former_stripper

  •

  9 years ago

  Generally doctors won't consider someone having it done until they had kids. Not always but usually. That's why I rarely come across men who have been snipped and are childfree, except a few older guys. I guess these doctors figured if the guy didn't have kids by a certain time he won't. However even these guys are rare. I think it has to do with lawsuits and such. I had an exboyfriend who was childfree and wanted it done so hopefully had it done by now.
• san_jose_guy

  •

  9 years ago

  "Generally doctors won't consider someone having it done until they had kids." Thanks former_stripper, but my understanding is that this is not true, not at all. Though I could understand that they would want to question such an applicant more carefully and get them to sign more papers and perhaps impose some waiting period. But Andrew Vachss is such a person childfree vasectomy in his early 20's. One could call doctors and Planned Parenthood and see, but I don't think they refuse such cases. consider: [view link] *************************************************** I want to ask another question about this, and this gets back to my issue list item #5: Anyone ever fell that a partner or prospective partner was looking down on them because they had had a vasectomy? Again, this kind of stuff is usually not rational. Anyone ever get a negative reaction when they told a partner? SJG Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick Discuss "The Untold History of the United States" [view link]
• former_stripper

  •

  9 years ago

  Unfortunately though it is hard to find a doctor to do it if one is childless and younger because of the whole "you'll change your mind mentality". I say this because when I was about 32 I considered having a tubal ligation because I was not really interested in having children. They refused because they figured I'd change my mind. The doctor did tell me they don't like to do these surgeries unless one is sure and they can feel it. For a few years I did consider having kids but then realized I probably wasn't going to (or at least bio kids)but still didn't have it done. I probably would not consider a guy who had it done, not because of not having kids but my experience shows me that guys who are childfree and are sterilized usually don't want anything serious either. Not always but usually.
• rockstar666

  •

  9 years ago

  I got snipped in the late 1990's. Best decision I ever made. Lots of women let me fuck them BB because of it. They trust I'm DDF but lots aren't on any BC which is kind of surprising to me.
• san_jose_guy

  •

  9 years ago

  @former_stripper, Do you have any links which go along with what you are saying? Or is this just the experience of yourself and your boyfriend? It might also depend on where you are at in the country, and if you are rural or urban. Some places are more conformist than others. This is my guess. But there are high profile people who have opted for permanent surgical sterilization, and at an early childfree age. This is one well known case, though probably anecdotal: [view link] "During the filming of Sabrina (1954), Audrey Hepburn and the already-married William Holden became romantically involved. She hoped to marry him and have children, but she broke off the relationship when Holden revealed that he had undergone a vasectomy." I can certainly appreciate a doctor who would refuse if the patient seemed iffy. But I believe it is the general position in that field of medicine, and also at Planned Parenthood, to give people what they want. I believe they still have some way of doing tubal litigation just by inserting a couple of little pills. If you want to do it, I encourage you to do it. I'm sorry the doctors have been difficult. You wrote, " I probably would not consider a guy who had it done, not because of not having kids but my experience shows me that guys who are childfree and are sterilized usually don't want anything serious either. Not always but usually. " Well I've never knowingly met anyone childfree and sterilized. But yes, this gets into the area I was talking about. I also think there could be women who would look with suspicion on a guy who had that done childfree, like he is someone who is shirking obligations. I think some of this is just that the girls I've known have been socially conformist. We've got real good free online people finders now. And then some people put lots of personal stuff up on social media. So in the last few weeks I've spent some time looking up people I went to high school and college with. Wow, all of them, they are Das Last Man. They are married, they have children, and some of them are extremely well-off now. Are there also some ne'er do wells and people with criminal records in their number? Don't know, but the people I've been able to find out about, they have done extremely well. But, I can't find one of them who has done anything interesting, like artistic or intellectual, or who has likely had sex with many people. So compared to them, I am a real outsider. So most of the civilian women I have known are like those I went to high school and college with. For them, having children mandatory. It is mandatory for them, and they see it as mandatory for everyone else. It is not a choice, or at least they don't want to admit that it could be a choice. So I don't think they would look well upon a guy who resisted this. It is not just that he wouldn't fit into their plans, it would run much deeper. They really would despise him. Decades back, before I had ever even thought about such things, I was often at the receiving end of such contempt. But then here I have to refer back to my local strip club experience. Softer core clubs, and some of the girls quite free thinking, and often being able to spend lots of time talking, and at only a moderate cost. I got an education. I learned from young women who think differently than those I came of age with. Some years back sitting in on a graduate level class at San Jose State, a student presenter asked of the young women, who was going to have children. Every hand went up, except I learned later one. This one, about 23yo, would go on to give a little speech chastising the rest of them. My own view is that many young people today really don't know where their lives are going to go. There actually is very little stability on the horizon. But most, especially if they were raised by parents who stayed married, want the conservative and approved track for themselves. I don't go along with this. I don't accept it. I say that middle-class life has always depended upon the exploitation of children, using them to provide identity and legitimacy for the adults. And of course then this is wrong. Thing is though, most of the children just accept it and exonerate their parents. One exception though was a very conservative Pentecostal family, which I have spoken of, where the three daughters were accusing the father of sexual molestation, where as their church was denouncing the girls. That this was a case of siblings closing ranks and making an incitement against completely middle-class conformists, was one of the reasons I got so involved. I got the privilege of helping to put this father in San Quentin. Rech and rockstar666, thank you both so much for speaking frankly! [view link] SJG Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick Discuss "The Untold History of the United States" [view link] [view link] locations: [view link]
• former_stripper

  •

  9 years ago

  Actually here is one article though I found a few online: [view link] This is very common because of the misconceptions (real or imagined). I have met a few childfree men and most are not looking for anything serious. Compare this to childless men who may have wanted kids but either didn't care either way or did but never met anyone and gave up. But no I haven't met many sterilized men unless they have had kids (mostly relatives). William Holden already had kids and doctors don't usually have a problem with snipping parents.
• san_jose_guy

  •

  9 years ago

  Yes @former_stripper, this is interesting. I knew that if you had something about this that it would be so. [view link] While I don't think anyone should receive sterilization unless they are fully informed and not seeming to be operating under some form of induced temporary stress, I do agree that what the article is describing is extremely paternalistic and sexist. What it actually reminds me of is what Ellen Peck describes in her 1971 classic, "The Baby Trap". She describes how single women were often denied the contraceptive pill by doctors saying that, "Unmarried women should show restraint". Published in 1971 - This was one of the earliest books to advocate that being childfree was a valid option for a woman. Of course, back in 1971 there was no such word as childfree - she cals it being 'voluntary childless'. some of her reasons include overpopulation, available resources for babies and children, and the state of marriage. If there are published statements or things on the web sites of doctors, I would be interested to read them. As I know, Planned Parenthood will deliver. From the start they have been a militant group, doing something which they know challenges societal norms, and often facing either jail or terrorist attacks. So I believe that someone who is obviously thinking clearly, will be able to get what they want from Planned Parenthood. Medical practices are political, and Planned Parenthood has been there to fill such needs. I'm sure you know that when Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister, India promoted vasectomy, and some have claimed that these were preformed on those who were not giving free and informed consent. I'm sure you also know that when Rajneesh's group was operating in India, there were many tubal litigations performed. As I have read, there were very few children in the Poona Ashram. When a pregnancy occurred, aides would speak to Rajneesh, and usually he would say, "Get this taken out", meaning pregnancy termination. And often he would say, "Get this taken out permanently", meaning also do tubal litigation. This of course makes a great deal of sense, to do the two procedures and the same time. But I am not clear that there was always free and informed consent. [view link] [view link] Near Mumbai ( Bombay ). Rajneesh had some interesting ideas to be sure. This continuing group seems to promote an adult and very sexualized, heterosexual only world, with very few children. People show up for a retreat and they are first supposed to pass an HIV / Aides test. [view link] You wrote: "I have met a few childfree men and most are not looking for anything serious." Well I don't know that this has to be true. As I see it, sex and breeding are diametric opposites. This may not be at first obvious. But just look at how such things work out and you will see. So those who want lots of sex have to be guerillas. In my opinion this is not hedonism, rather it comes from the desire for continuing self-actualization and self-overcoming, and for a world where love is open and free, instead of neurotic. This does not mean that there could not in principle be long term relationships, but in practice people have to protect themselves from coercive societal forces. I believe that long term relationships would have to occur in the context of some organizational structure, to provide protection. The idea that some of the best and brightest women and men should be removed from the social institutions by which society replicates itself, is hardly new. Not new in the West, not new in the East. But being able to be honest about it is still very new. I'd be very interested if you have any more related links. SJG [view link] From the Mathematics of Supersymmetry to the Music of Arnold Schoenberg [view link] [view link] Arnold Schoenberg: Verklärte Nacht [view link] Schoenberg Variations for Orchestra, Op. 31 [view link] [view link] Arnold Schoenberg and Twelve-Tone Music - OpenBUCS . East Tennessee State University [view link] [view link] [view link] in Johnson City [view link] Lulu, using 12 tone [view link] Berg: Lulu suite [view link] [view link] [view link] [view link] Lotte Lenya sings Kurt Weill, introduced by Aaron Copeland [view link] Bernstein on Schoenberg , 4 parts [view link] Marlene Dietrich - Falling in love again (1930) Video [view link] Falling in Love Again - Christina Aguilera (Shorter Version) [view link] Popular Music vs. Concert Music I The Great Courses [view link]
• former_stripper

  •

  9 years ago

  I don't know if there is a standard with organizations like the AMA. I think it's an individual decision and that the doctors who don't do it because of a variety of reasons. For example, like you mentioned that there is more of a thought that women all want babies while men may not as much. That of course is sexist because many men want kids and many women don't, though in general most at least consider it. Here's another article I found about a woman fighting to be sterilized: [view link]. Also too, there is a stigma because many years ago many people who were considered lesser (basically poor or minorities or mentally challenged were sterilized against their will). Here's something I find fascinating: [view link]. There are many articles like this online and the gist of it is that the higher IQ women aren't having as many babies. There are of course many reasons for this, such as more intelligent women often don't find mates or that they aren't interested in having babies. The downside of course is that dumber women are having more kids. This goes back to the question about sterilization in the past and whether it was always such a bad idea to sterilize some women people.
• san_jose_guy

  •

  8 years ago

  Your two articles and the referenced book are both very interesting. I'm going to get hold of the book and appraise it. But I do find it suspect already. I often read stuff so that I can assimilate what is good about it, and then figure out how to argue against it. As I know the position of that arm of the AMA is that people should be given what they want, but that it has to be done responsibly and doctors have to use judgment and they should not be forced. So as yes, there do seem to be problems, this underscores just how important Planned Parenthood is. If you seek such a procedure, I would suggest Planned Parenthood. And any money you can give them will be for a very good cause. Reproductive issues are still taboo. It is rather like LGBT life used to be, stigmatized, unthinkable. Today refusing to breed is still a subject which is for most people unthinkable and undiscussable. But the idea is not new, as religious orders have always depended on celibacy, like with Nazirite vows. Refusal to breed is the most profound form of cultural resistance. Now about women with higher IQ having less children, this has long been true and long been noted. Really, the less life options a woman has, the more she will go for breeding. I first came to understand this when reading about disabled young women. Should one of them become pregnant, she will always insist on the having the child, whether or not she is at all able to care for it. She will project her own desire for wholeness onto the child. And so also people who are living disadvantaged lives will always want to have children too, projecting their hopes of a better future onto the children. In this case I can't really blame them, as they are the victims of social injustice. Having children is one of the few ways they can fight back. The only exit from this cycle of requisite breeding has been religious celibacy. And so it is now no accident that as LGBT lifestyles are more accepted, religious vocations have cratered. It is also no accident that the religious organization which has long benefited from offering the only escape valve, is also the one most insistent on enforcing the breeding imperative on anyone except it's own vocations. The theologian John Dominic Crossan says that in the ancient world, for a woman to be able to remain celibate, was a monumental display of power to achieve freedom. Well today, reproductive and sexual choice are still monumental displays of freedom, when done without following one of the accepted religious paths. So we know that childfree by choice is not yet an accepted lifestyle. And these accounts from the article of troubles in the doctor's office substantiate this. I remember working for Company A, which got merged with Company B. So Company B sent it's Human Resources person in from out of state, to get everyone up to speed on the new benefits package. She started going on and on about how high their pregnancy rate was. This set me back some at first. But then I realized, well yes, basically a company of young people, young men, and young men making good salaries, that is going to push up the pregnancy rate. It is not necessarily representative of the population. And this pregnancy rate, it was being manufactured by the economics. Pregnancy makes marriage more escape proof. And then in Ellen Peck's 1971 "The Baby Trap", she talks about a presentation where the picture of a really ugly baby was shown on the screen. All the women started cooing. Peck said it sounded like a seaplane talking off. And the kid was really ugly. And then some months ago I posted about matters in Louisiana. I posted this very good performance of Street Car Named Desire. [view link] In it all the women start cooing over a possible pregnancy. Well in Tennessee Williams's plays, the women are all either crazy, going crazy, or going to be going crazy. Except maybe for his in comedy, "Night of the Iguana", they are black plays about revolting people. And so this cooing over the pregnancy, and the pregnancy itself, have to be considered as more of such. That this be seen this way has to be the author's intent. But as far as human intelligence, we destroy that everyday with our Muggle Schools, our Peer Culture Socialization, and with The Family. I go with what Simone de Beauvoir has written, that for most women, "motherhood is an inauthentic choice". She means that they don't even want to admit that they have choices. They want something to hide behind. And then of course this sets up a negative environment. It is child exploitation. So I don't think we need to worry about genetics. There are far bigger factors in play which do far more harm. A book you might be interested in: [view link] The author explains that the political moves to do compulsory sterilization are completely bound up with the campaign against LGBT's, and also with pressures to force large scale breeding. The NAZI doctors had a hierarchy, where at the top, and the only really accepted form, was the large German family. Then below this were the small family, and then the childless couples, and then those who declined marriage, and then homosexuals. All of those towards the bottom were referred to as "contragenics". It was claimed that they were revolting against nature, and as such they should be forced to change or eliminated. And then these programs of sterilization and euthanasia became the prototypes for the campaign against Jews. So I say we should not have any forced, coerced, or pressured sterilizations, and we should not worry about who is breeding. But likewise, we do need to look at how the middle-class family has always been something for adults to hide behind, and a way of exploiting children. And I say that the more we can lower the birth rate, by voluntary and ethical means the better. Like say 1 child per 20 women, until the population of the world gets to between 500Meg and 1Gig. Then let it go to a zero growth level. But we cannot force this. And right now conformist social pressures are still keeping the birth rate up. Another interesting book: [view link] Faludi writes for the LA Times. She is explaining how in the 1980's there was a huge cultural backlash against the Women's Movement of the 60's and 70's. Sometimes it was packaged as "New Domesticity", a marketing term. But it is also just the rise of Yuppieism. It is about how the gains made by feminism were re-territorialized back into the same conformist agenda. What this has amounted to is not freedom, but dual income sized mortgage payments. former_stripper, this topic goes very deep and so my responses to what you have posted are always completely inadequate. But if you have any more materials, I would be very interested in seeing them. I do think this discussion is extremely fruitful. SJG KISSING BUG by Duke Ellington , written by Billy Strayhorn [view link] [view link] Take the A Train [view link] Miles Davis - So What [view link] Miles Davis - "The Blue Room" [Take 1] (Complete Prestige Recordings 1951-1956) [view link] Bluing, hear that dissonant piano playing! It isn't, but it sounds like Thelonius Monk [view link] [view link].
• former_stripper

  •

  8 years ago

  I have heard Backlash and that book had some great points and some not so great, but one of the ones that stood out for me was about the superwoman of the 80's and how you had these career women and all that they faced. It really was the first time that women were making the choice to be childfree or it was chosen for them. You probably remember the famous study about women after a certain age (I think it was 30 then)being more likely to be killed by a terrorist than get married. It was later proven that this as an exaggeration and that most of the women interviewed did in fact marry. Even today there are stats that have been proven false related to this yet keep getting pushed as fact. One interesting fact about marriage is that more children born to moms under 30 are born illegitimate. Some are career focused but others aren't. Meanwhile the marriage rate goes up and down. All of this falls into play because until quite recently women were told being wives and mothers should be their ultimate goal. Now with women having choices the dynamic has changed. It's changed too for men, some would argue good some bad. One thing that has happened is that women used to use pregnancy to trap a man (some men did it too)but now not always the case. These women tend to be those who often have nothing else going in their life so they want a baby and think it means getting a husband too. Tennessee Williams is fantastic and I've read his plays. Laura to me was a strong character though at first she appears weak. Same with Blance Dubois. I'll have to seek out both of those books.
• WetWilly

  •

  8 years ago

  Never had kids, although I was married for 10 years. Snipped after divorce in my late 30's. Should have done it earlier.
• san_jose_guy

  •

  8 years ago

  @former_stripper, I got called away yesterday before I could really finish my above post. I'll be back tomorrow, and thanks WetWilly for your views. I'm going to get this sent from another library and read it. But I usually don't go along with evolutionary biologists. So I'm not yet going to suggest it's purchase. But it does look most interesting: ************************************************************ From the Inside Flap Seventeenth-century political philosopher Thomas Hobbes once observed that intelligence must be equally distributed among humans, because no one ever complained that they didn't get as much as everyone else. Of course, that was before the invention of the IQ test prompted a series of objections that the tests were biased and/or inaccurate, that intelligence can't really be measured, and that there are multiple types of intelligence. For well over a century, intelligence and what it means have been the source of endless controversy. Here comes more. In The Intelligence Paradox, the coauthor of Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, Satoshi Kanazawa challenges the common misconceptions about what intelligence is and what it is not, how it is measured, what it's good for, and what it's bad at. He also makes many controversial statements: liberals are, on average, more intelligent than conservatives; atheists are more intelligent than believers; and homosexuals are more intelligent than heterosexuals. And using the latest research, he shows each one to be true. At its core, Kanazawa's message is that intelligence, while certainly an asset, is one human trait among many, and it is in no way a measure of human worth. He reveals how the purposefor which general intelligence evolved—solving evolutionarily novel problems that were rarely encountered during life on the savanna—allows us to understand why the most intelligent people have the particular values and preferences they have. He also explains why, despite their huge brains, the most intelligent people are often less successful than their less intelligent relatives at solving life's most important problems. Kanazawa uses the findings of several large long-term studies to examine the relationship between intelligence and numerous preferences and values. What he discovers is often surprising and sometimes, indeed, paradoxical. Intelligent men, for example, are more likely than less intelligent men to value sexual exclusivity for themselves, yet also more likely to cheat on wives or girlfriends despite what they really want. Why are intelligent people more likely than less intelligent people to be night owls and late sleepers? Precisely because it is unnatural. It may not surprise you to learn that intelligent people are more likely to prefer classical music to pop—but why on earth would they also like elevator music? Intersecting the fields of evolutionary psychology and intelligence research, The Intelligence Paradox is guaranteed to change the way you think about all that thinking you do. From the Back Cover Advance praise for The Intelligence Paradox "The Intelligence Paradox is a chocolate sundae for the brain, filled with insights about intelligence and everyday behavior that have changed my thinking about intelligence. A brilliant achievement and a joy to read."—Charles Murray, author of the New York Times bestseller Coming Apart "This is a splendidly written book about a fascinating new theory of intelligence. By carefully anchoring his approach in evidence, Kanazawa integrates information about the evolution of intelligence in intriguing and tantalizing ways. He also generates some startling and provocative predictions. Be forewarned, this book will change the way you think about intelligence." —Gordon Gallup, evolutionary psychologist, University at Albany, SUNY "This is a beautifully written book that will sell to laymen as well as to academics. Kanazawa's thesis is that intelligence, what IQ tests measure, is a specific ability to cope with general problems for which our evolution has not prepared us. Intelligence then leads to great benefit when tethered to the real world, such as quantum theory and computers. Untethered, it can lead to convoluted nonsense such as fads in literary criticism. And while intelligence may often be considered an unalloyed good, Kanazawa shows it has costs to biological fitness. For example, intelligent people have fewer offspring, although successful reproduction is the definition of evolutionary success. Intelligent people are more prone to indulge in (evolutionary) novelties such as drugs. Viewed from the perspective of evolution, intelligent people are 'the ultimate losers in life.'"—Henry Harpending, coauthor of The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution "General intelligence is both a grand achievement of psychology research and a crucial human dimension. That people differ so markedly from each other on such an important trait has seemed something of an evolutionary paradox. Wouldn't evolution make us all smart? Satoshi Kanazawa proposes an intriguing explanation about how human intelligence evolved and why differences remain among us. It is a creative but data-driven argument that I found surprising but sensible. I think he may be right. And it's delivered in a breezily elegant style that is a joy to read."—J. Michael Bailey, author of The Man Who Would Be Queen [view link] ********************************** TO BE CONTINUED SJG
• ime

  •

  8 years ago

  Ontario Canada, Universal Basic Income!!!! [view link] I think a basic income guarantee is mandatory. Capitalism is what creates unemployment. And Cecil Williams and the people who run Guild Memorial United Methodist Church in San Francisco have got it right. Poverty is caused by social marginalization. So a corollary is simply this, everyone wants to do well. They want to win the admiration of family and friends. So if they are not doing well, then there must be some social marginalization or disability at work here. But as the main problem is marginalization, then we should not talk about disability, as usually this just means more marginalization. And of course it is absurd that people should be accepting psychiatric labels. These are just an extreme form of oppression. So for there to be justice there has to be this basic income guarantee, or what amounts to cradle to grave welfare. The typical person on welfare takes far less out of our economy than those employed do. And if the welfare recipient is not driving around much in a car, then they are treading far more lightly on the earth than those who senselessly burn up gas and dump CO2 into the atmosphere to do jobs which produce absolutely nothing which people need to live. Now welfare takes money out of gov't coffers, but in the US welfare has never been more than 3% of federal expenditure. This is much less than corporate welfare and other expenses directed to the betterment of the middle class in order to maintain political allegiance, or to keeping the poor down. So welfare is a cheaper way to keep our society going than the present state of affairs. And then as far as federal accounts, it is the federal gov't which controls the printing press, the furnace, and interest rates which multiply the availability of money by the inverse of the interest rate. Suffice to say, federal accounts and the money supply are all under gov't control, hence it is artificial. It is just a matter of who and what are being served by it. So as those who are not doing well are simply the victims of social injustice, we must redress this social injustice. 1. Stop using psychiatric labels, learning disability labels, or morality labels. 2. Offer people value producing work, not nonsense just to get a paycheck. 3. Provide this cradle to grave welfare system as efficiently as possible, and understand that everyone wants to be a useful and meaningful part of our society. 4. Follow my recommendation and hold parents accountable for exploiting their children, using them to give themselves a adult identity. This amounts to psychological child abuse. So besides criminal prosecution where practical, also prevent disinheritance and offer something like a divorce from one's parents when their is parent v child animosity. Make the parents pay, and pay dearly. Make it so that child exploitation no longer pays. 5. And for those who insist on calling the poor lazy or immoral, know that this is how Capitalism works. It is the family where this starts, with the designation of a child as the blacksheep. Those who denigrate the poor are just doing what their parents did to them. So the poor and marginalized need to start standing up for themselves rather than submitting. They and all of us must start engaging in public advocacy and non-violent civil disobedience. 6. And then since the New Economy and Libertarianism are really just the old Social Darwinism and Eugenics Movement, saying that the poor are not fit to compete, we all need to be prepared to do more than just be non-violent. We don't want to be like Anne Frank's father, hiding in an attic waiting for the Gestapo. We need to be ready to engage in guerrilla warfare, the use of lethal force, and without taking prisoners. Unless we are willing to do this, then we are helping the eugenicists who say that we are not fit to live. Gandhi and Jesus lived in violent revolutionary times. They were only able to accomplish their works because others were maintaining the constant threat of lethal violence on a large scale. [view link]
• san_jose_guy

  •

  8 years ago

  Thank you there Mr. IME for replicating my post and bumping my thread. I guess I was wrong, you aren't a troll after all. SJG "I fear that an writing a requiem for myself" [view link]
• ime

  •

  8 years ago

  Ontario Canada, Universal Basic Income!!!! [view link] I think a basic income guarantee is mandatory. Capitalism is what creates unemployment. And Cecil Williams and the people who run Guild Memorial United Methodist Church in San Francisco have got it right. Poverty is caused by social marginalization. So a corollary is simply this, everyone wants to do well. They want to win the admiration of family and friends. So if they are not doing well, then there must be some social marginalization or disability at work here. But as the main problem is marginalization, then we should not talk about disability, as usually this just means more marginalization. And of course it is absurd that people should be accepting psychiatric labels. These are just an extreme form of oppression. So for there to be justice there has to be this basic income guarantee, or what amounts to cradle to grave welfare. The typical person on welfare takes far less out of our economy than those employed do. And if the welfare recipient is not driving around much in a car, then they are treading far more lightly on the earth than those who senselessly burn up gas and dump CO2 into the atmosphere to do jobs which produce absolutely nothing which people need to live. Now welfare takes money out of gov't coffers, but in the US welfare has never been more than 3% of federal expenditure. This is much less than corporate welfare and other expenses directed to the betterment of the middle class in order to maintain political allegiance, or to keeping the poor down. So welfare is a cheaper way to keep our society going than the present state of affairs. And then as far as federal accounts, it is the federal gov't which controls the printing press, the furnace, and interest rates which multiply the availability of money by the inverse of the interest rate. Suffice to say, federal accounts and the money supply are all under gov't control, hence it is artificial. It is just a matter of who and what are being served by it. So as those who are not doing well are simply the victims of social injustice, we must redress this social injustice. 1. Stop using psychiatric labels, learning disability labels, or morality labels. 2. Offer people value producing work, not nonsense just to get a paycheck. 3. Provide this cradle to grave welfare system as efficiently as possible, and understand that everyone wants to be a useful and meaningful part of our society. 4. Follow my recommendation and hold parents accountable for exploiting their children, using them to give themselves a adult identity. This amounts to psychological child abuse. So besides criminal prosecution where practical, also prevent disinheritance and offer something like a divorce from one's parents when their is parent v child animosity. Make the parents pay, and pay dearly. Make it so that child exploitation no longer pays. 5. And for those who insist on calling the poor lazy or immoral, know that this is how Capitalism works. It is the family where this starts, with the designation of a child as the blacksheep. Those who denigrate the poor are just doing what their parents did to them. So the poor and marginalized need to start standing up for themselves rather than submitting. They and all of us must start engaging in public advocacy and non-violent civil disobedience. 6. And then since the New Economy and Libertarianism are really just the old Social Darwinism and Eugenics Movement, saying that the poor are not fit to compete, we all need to be prepared to do more than just be non-violent. We don't want to be like Anne Frank's father, hiding in an attic waiting for the Gestapo. We need to be ready to engage in guerrilla warfare, the use of lethal force, and without taking prisoners. Unless we are willing to do this, then we are helping the eugenicists who say that we are not fit to live. Gandhi and Jesus lived in violent revolutionary times. They were only able to accomplish their works because others were maintaining the constant threat of lethal violence on a large scale. [view link]
• san_jose_guy

  •

  8 years ago

  Mr. IME, replicating my post twice on the same thread! The next time you want to start impersonating me by replicating my posts, just PM me and I'll send you my account password. But whatever you are on right now, you've got to stay off of it. Just intoxication alone does not do this to someone. Rather it happens when someone is so psychologically addicted to a mood altering chemical that they cannot function without it. SJG Beethoven's 9th [view link]
• rockstar666

  •

  8 years ago

  Snipped in the late 90's and I can count on one hand how many time's I've use a condom. Still never had an STD.
• san_jose_guy

  •

  8 years ago

  I take these contributions to heart. But, I am still not clear how many people there are who have gotten snipped while child free. And also, I think about what former_stripper said about not wanting to become involved with guys who are snipped because they seem not to want anything too serious. The other part of my OP was after all about telling the women you have just met about being snipped. SJG
• RandomMember

  •

  8 years ago

  Snipped just last Oct and immediately told my dancer / SB about it. I just love being able to relax and enjoy the increased intimacy. Wish I had done it sooner.
• san_jose_guy

  •

  8 years ago

  Probably not snipped child free though? And how about other girls you have just met, telling them about it? Using a condom with them, just to make them interpret that you are not snipped? Probably you can tell, I find all the facets of this most interesting. SJG Best of Mozart [view link]
• RandomMember

  •

  8 years ago

  That's right, SJG, I already have kids. I would immediately tell any future partner because the sex is way better if both of us can relax.
• san_jose_guy

  •

  8 years ago

  "because the sex is way better if both of us can relax." Yes of course, but do women really want sex to be relaxing, or is it always about brinksmanship and one party running a game on the other? I mean, if a woman says she is not on the pill, what that usually means is, "Don't you think you can fuck me with impunity." If she says she is on the pill, then watch out, she wants you to get her pregnant. So one might be snipped and wear a condom, just to make the girl think you are not snipped, and that will make the sex more emotionally explosive for her. If ever challenged about this he could just say that he wanted to prevent STD's. These facets of this are why I find it all extremely interesting. On the whole though, I think women are way ahead of men in deviousness. And then about having kids of not, I still don't know how women feel about that in a man. Thanks, SJG
• Dominic77

  •

  8 years ago

  SJG --> "Anyone want to talk about it?" --> >1. "Snipped, no children, w/ children, w/ sperm banking, no sperm banking." Yes, Vasectomy at 25 or 26, I forget. No children, no sperm banking. I would have done it earlier even. I'm 38 now. We had an accident and needed to get a morning after pill from Planned Parenthood. Had that not worked, I would have asked her to get an abortion. At that point, I one hundred and ten percent knew I had made up my mind on this subject. So I made the appointment with the urologist that same day for a consultation. I did run into some push-back from the urologist for being young and childless and unmarried. >2. "Regrets?" No. None. It was a mutual decision with my partner at the time. I would have done it earlier even. >3. "Try to get it reversed?" No. The surgery is $4K+ and has very low probability of success. Plus my wife is already in her upper 30s. It would be waste of money, IMO. In the highly unlikely scenario, I would adopt a child, and I don't want children. We do have animal pets, which I adore having. >4. "Still use condoms for STD prevention?" No. I am in a LTR, so, no condoms. Some of the benefits of a vasectomy were that (1) I would no longer need condoms (2) no risk of unwanted pregnancy (3) partner would no longer need female birth control (4) I could spare my partner from having to get an invasive tubal ligation. " And then getting into an area I find most intriguing: >5. Not tell new partners and still use condoms, in order to not have them look down on you, or to have them at least subliminally get wound up in the drama of possibly being pregnant and having to watch the calendar. Sex is after all a head trip. " I would tell new partners that I am snipped. No seriously, one hundred percent I would tell them. But, I have not had any new partners since being snipped. If I could guarantee a provider was CLEAN and STD/STI free, I would do BBFS. Absolutely. My take is: "the truth always has a way of coming out." So I like to come clean and honest right out of the gate with people. Hypothetically, say I had OTC p4p with my CF. I would tell her I was snipped, and if the logistics work out, I would do BBFS. I think that should make that clear. I do realize that at a young age (25 then about 38 now), being snipped probably makes me useless to about 95% of the women out there, since so many of them want to have children (and affluent income/home, and a ripped bod, and a larger than 6.5 inch dick - - none of which I have). I grew up in a family who struggled financially. I am not well off either. I would not want to (or I would not enjoy to) raise children in that environment. I feel I would be raising them for societal obligation or because my partner wants them and not because I really want them. I had my fill helping to raise siblings, cousins, and "foster strays" when I grew up while my mom worked crazy hours. I had my fill; no thanks. I would not even consider them again without adding $100K to my present salary. Snipped and interested in long term commitments. SJG --> "But, I am still not clear how many people there are who have gotten snipped while child free. And also, I think about what former_stripper said about not wanting to become involved with guys who are snipped because they seem not to want anything too serious." --> end quote SJG former_stripper --> "I probably would not consider a guy who had it done, not because of not having kids but my experience shows me that guys who are childfree and are sterilized usually don't want anything serious either. Not always but usually. " --> end quote former_stripper SJG --> "And so also people who are living disadvantaged lives will always want to have children too, projecting their hopes of a better future onto the children." --> ^I think a lot of that is true. *If* I had children, I would very likely be thinking this way, too. Like, wow, my life is a struggle, and I want better for my children rather than better for just me (since I probably can't afford to *do* both). So I'm selfish and I don't want children. I enjoy spending time and money on my wife, whom I plan to keep for a very long time. --> SJG " Probably you can tell, I find all the facets of this most interesting." --> You can ask me anything . . .
• flagooner

  •

  8 years ago

  Snipped and glad I did it
• san_jose_guy

  •

  8 years ago

  Dominic77, thank you for your most personal, detailed, and self aware answers! flagooner, thank you too! SJG
• san_jose_guy

  •

  8 years ago

  Dominic77, I have mostly not ever been in that situation you describe of the feared accidental pregnancy. The situations I have been in were more about contraceptive sabotage, oopsing, and such. But if I had been in the situation you are describing, that could well have pushed me to act. As I reflect on what you are saying, I can see that you have shown extraordinary clarity of thought. The main problem with the middle-class is that it lives in bad faith, it doesn't want to admit that it has choices, and so it preys on children. The middle-class family has only been able to continue because it is able to suck the life out of children. By this I mean that children are used to give identity and social legitimacy to the adults. And how this comes about is that the adults won't admit that they had the choice as to whether or not they had children. And so far, the parents always get away with zero consequence. So the clarity you have shown, at this time and acting as you did, is truly extraordinary. You are an example whom others should follow. SJG The Hermetic Teachings of Tehuti [view link]
• Dominic77

  •

  8 years ago

  @SJG: Thank you for the kind words. :) Ghost Dog: "In the words of the ancients, one should make his decision within the space of seven breaths" (Couldn't find the actual scene, fantastic movie if you haven't seen it) Dominic Ghost Dog and the RZA: [view link]
• san_jose_guy

  •

  8 years ago

  Thanks SJG