Calling Languish parents: Why did you decide to have children?

[Ideologue]

Until contraception was invented, it wasn't nearly the deliberate decision it is now either.

The facial was one of humanity's earliest inventions, predating the wheel in many cultures.

Probably not.

I was at a lecture several years ago when the speaker went off on a sidetrack about how pronography had changed society's sexual expectations.  He was talking about anal sex in particular - that 40-50 years ago to see an anal sexual assault was extremely rare.  Now it is fairly commonplace.  The "biological imperative" hasn't changed, but access to sexually explicit material has.

In other words - if you had been born even a mere 100 years ago you probably would have no idea what a "facial" is, and have no interest in performing it.

I'm not really sure how your anecdote relates to what Ide said.  After all, anal sex still existed even when most people didn't have access to sexually explicit material.

I suspect that the rate at which it existed was far, far less than it is today.

An entirely different statement.

I realize that there is no definitive history of the cumshot, and belatedly wish I'd stayed the path, ran the gauntlet, and gone to graduate school.  That's the kind of research that turns worlds upside down, my friends.  But I leave it to the future generations.

[Martinus]

This is an off topic but also I think an interesting discussion (perhaps a different thread is in order?). As I think Merri said, we have very little visibility of sexual mores prior to the broadly understood Victorian era but the records that exist show that interest in various non-standard sexual practices waxes and wanes across the ages.

Of a personal interest to me, it appears for example that there is definitive evidence that fetishes (especially foot fetishes) used to be quite popular in Europe at various times in the past - and more interestingly it seems that "outbreaks" of foot fetishism in pornography in the past were correlated with outbreaks of diseases - thus leading historians of sexuality to speculate it might be some sort of instinctive response to a threat of STDs.

Anal sex and various forms of anal stimulation have also been quite popular during different ages so I think Ideologue is more right about this than BarristerBoy.

[DGuller]

I don't think people even had sex 100 years ago, if early movies are any indication.

[Martinus]

Man did this thing fly off the rails.

I don't think it did. So far you offered an interesting counterpoint. Just ignore Valdemar as I did and this thread is still salvageable.

[Ideologue]

This is an off topic but also I think an interesting discussion (perhaps a different thread is in order?). As I think Merri said, we have very little visibility of sexual mores prior to the broadly understood Victorian era but the records that exist show that interest in various non-standard sexual practices waxes and wanes across the ages.

Of a personal interest to me, it appears for example that there is definitive evidence that fetishes (especially foot fetishes) used to be quite popular in Europe at various times in the past - and more interestingly it seems that "outbreaks" of foot fetishism in pornography in the past were correlated with outbreaks of diseases - thus leading historians of sexuality to speculate it might be some sort of instinctive response to a threat of STDs.

Anal sex and various forms of anal stimulation have also been quite popular during different ages so I think Ideologue is more right about this than BarristerBoy.

I'm actually like 99.9999% sure the Romans had facials.  They had fellatio.  They had irrumatio.  Put two and two together.

[Martinus]

This is an off topic but also I think an interesting discussion (perhaps a different thread is in order?). As I think Merri said, we have very little visibility of sexual mores prior to the broadly understood Victorian era but the records that exist show that interest in various non-standard sexual practices waxes and wanes across the ages.

Of a personal interest to me, it appears for example that there is definitive evidence that fetishes (especially foot fetishes) used to be quite popular in Europe at various times in the past - and more interestingly it seems that "outbreaks" of foot fetishism in pornography in the past were correlated with outbreaks of diseases - thus leading historians of sexuality to speculate it might be some sort of instinctive response to a threat of STDs.

Anal sex and various forms of anal stimulation have also been quite popular during different ages so I think Ideologue is more right about this than BarristerBoy.

I'm actually like 99.9999% sure the Romans had facials.  They had fellatio.  They had irrumatio.  Put two and two together.

Speaking of which, I think "irrumator" must be one of the best sounding insults/nicknames that Romans had for each other. 

Anyway, surely they had it. I mean, would Fellini, Jarman or Passolini lie to us about it?

[Ed Anger]

I need to make make a trip to Pompeii to see the brothel paintings.

[Malthus]

Mostly, to experience a major aspect of life. 

Most of the true rewards of parenting are things you only really 'get' once you become one, so obtaining them isn't why I chose to be one.

Look at it this way: at every stage of life, you can find life getting stale and repetitive if you refuse to move on and make some major change - even though the stage of life you were at was very interesting, creative and enjoyable. I did not want to end up as that 40-something guy still trying to party like he was 28. I wanted new challenges and new adventures.

It certainly had nothing to do with any larger issues of first world population. I suppose it was totally selfish. Why not? Most of my decisions have been totally selfish - I got a job because I liked money, I dated because I liked sex, I got married because I enjoyed companionship, etc. 

[Valdemar]

I don't think it did. So far you offered an interesting counterpoint. Just ignore Valdemar as I did and this thread is still salvageable.

Did you also pick up your ball and leave the playground if you got tackled? You are sore loser. I didn't derail you as much as refusing to allow you to read things into my posts and refusing to get away with trying to once again grandstanding your own misbeliefs of grandeur.

If you actually read what I replied, then you'd notice a theme that isn't unlike what other posters said. That your of on using the word justify if you really want an explanantion, that it smack of you needing to justify your own lifestyle choices at the expense of everyone else, and your need to make yourself feel superior.

And when you do that Marti, then you do not get serious reponses, only reponses trying to expose your posts.

And frankly, I still don't see why the question needs justification at all, or even an explanation. Adding to the slew of other threads on the same vein from you it still look more than anything else like you are trying to project your own insecurities unto the rest of us.

Perhaps you should start out by justifying why you chose NOT to have children? Then perhaps, if you could keep the tone level and not snide, then maybe, just maybe we would answer seriously as well

V

[garbon]

In that case, what was the justification for getting us? 

Poor life choices and addiction.

[garbon]

I don't think it did. So far you offered an interesting counterpoint. Just ignore Valdemar as I did and this thread is still salvageable.

Did you also pick up your ball and leave the playground if you got tackled? You are sore loser. I didn't derail you as much as refusing to allow you to read things into my posts and refusing to get away with trying to once again grandstanding your own misbeliefs of grandeur.

If you actually read what I replied, then you'd notice a theme that isn't unlike what other posters said. That your of on using the word justify if you really want an explanantion, that it smack of you needing to justify your own lifestyle choices at the expense of everyone else, and your need to make yourself feel superior.

And when you do that Marti, then you do not get serious reponses, only reponses trying to expose your posts.

And frankly, I still don't see why the question needs justification at all, or even an explanation. Adding to the slew of other threads on the same vein from you it still look more than anything else like you are trying to project your own insecurities unto the rest of us.

Perhaps you should start out by justifying why you chose NOT to have children? Then perhaps, if you could keep the tone level and not snide, then maybe, just maybe we would answer seriously as well

V

tl;dr

[The Brain]

Why does Valdemar care passionately about Mart's opinion?

[Valdemar]

In that case, what was the justification for getting us? 

Poor life choices and addiction.

Despite all in the past I do like you G  you are great fun when you want to be

V

[Valdemar]

tl;dr

?? don't understand that?

Brain, I don't, but I do enjoy arguing against him and pricking needles in his vanity balloon once in a while... look at my post count, I'm not exactly around much

V

[garbon]

In that case, what was the justification for getting us? 

Poor life choices and addiction.

Despite all in the past I do like you G  you are great fun when you want to be

V

And that's a personal failing.