Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Owlbread]

... you wouldn't be losing reproductive capability, just establishing more or less total control over it. Assuming implementation was properly done, anyway. What's to be unenthusiastic about? Sounds like an improvement from the normal state of things, t'me.

If I can't ejaculate and have to rely on a state controlled supply every time I want a wean then that is neutering myself. I can still have a baby, but I would be neutered. I would rather not submit to something like that for the same reason that women would rather not have their husbands control their wombs; I don't want someone else to control my body or force me to alter it in any way.

I think this would be far better as a voluntary program than something forced on people, otherwise I'm going to have to go Logan's Run and live in the jungle somewhere.

[Max White]

Well from my understanding there is no loss in sexual pleasure, so that isn't really an issue.
As for having kids when ever you want... Over population, potential for bad parenting, we can't all be parents and have it work out blah blah blah political idealism huge amount of faith in humanity what could go wrong?

[Owlbread]

Well from my understanding there is no loss in sexual pleasure, so that isn't really an issue.
As for having kids when ever you want... Over population, potential for bad parenting, we can't all be parents and have it work out blah blah blah political idealism huge amount of faith in humanity what could go wrong?

It's got nothing to do with sexual pleasure. I would rather have faith in humanity and suffer the effects of over population than submit to being neutered by the state. A voluntary program is preferable, in my opinion. If you guys want the state to provide you with an operation like that, by all means go for it. Maybe in the UK we could get the NHS to cover vastectomies.

[Max White]

No the subtle self aware point I was trying to make was that I was having an unfounded level of faith in humanity by assuming that such a program wouldn't eventually be used as a method of silent genocide against some genetic trait.

[Frumple]

Okay, first bit: You can still ejaculate, you're just sterile. Your issue is obviously with the latter bit, but don't misrepresent the process in question while you're taking issue with it, yeah?

The bits after that... sure. Properly implemented, though, it wouldn't be state "controlled" in the way you're likely thinking... access and whatnot would be entirely in the hands of the individual -- no vetting process, whatever. By and large you'd have more control over your body than previously, really, because you'd have absolute control over the reproductive process instead of leaving that bit up to varying degrees of physiological chance. At least insofar as the separately stored reproductive material goes.

The actual surgery aspect, sure, be welcome to have issues with. I wouldn't exactly disagree. But state enabled vasectomy, with complementary sperm storage? Sign me the blazes up. That sure as hell isn't being neutered in my book.

[SalmonGod]

Vasectomies can have nasty complications.  I thought about getting one for a while, but I found this rather intimidating.  The percentage may not look high, but I always look at these things in terms of a die roll.  It's almost the same as a 1 on a d20.  If this is something that were done to everybody, that would be millions of men subjected to a chronic pain condition, just in the U.S..

I'd also want my sperm stored in multiple locations and if I ever decide to make use of them, a dna test done to make sure there's no mix-ups before fertilization.

And yeah... it would be an enormous power granted to the government.  Should some prejudice ever get too popular, ensuring the destruction of a minority within a couple generations would be... disturbingly simple.

[Frumple]

Interesting how most of the sources in that article are over a decade old, hrm (and a couple of the ones that aren't seem to be referencing cases where it was done years previous.). Wonder if the process has improved, or that bit of data re: control group has been collected yet. Know of any more recent studies, SG?

[SalmonGod]

Nah... it was like 5 years ago when I looked into it, and I didn't dig that deep.

[Glowcat]

So this happened in Nigeria.

Lawmakers in Nigeria passed a bill Thursday banning gay marriage and outlawing anyone from forming organizations supporting gay rights, setting prison terms of up to 14 years for offenders.

While the USA slowly improves, somewhere else goes to... It's almost as if there was a cosmic law that good must be balanced out by bullshit.

[Sheb]

The situation in the US and Africa is actually linked: as the US turn more progressive, conservative gay-haters turn to Africa as the next battleground.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Africa has hardly been a gay friendly place for some time now. The continent is split between conservative Christian factions and Sunni Islam, possibly the most gay unfriendly peoples on Earth. South Africa is the one and only African nation with any legal recognition of gay couples, and that was from a deeply unpopular judicial ruling.

[Leafsnail]

A lot of anti-gay laws are actually legacies of colonial rule.

[Morrigi]

There are a bunch of Nigerians working at my boarding school.

[kaijyuu]

In another part of the world, good things happened, at least.

Australia is slightly less crazy than expected.

[SalmonGod]

There were Nigerian janitors working at my office for a while who said they don't listen to music because they think it's the devil.