Formally anythingforums.com, iceteks.com, uovalor.com and uogateway.com Forums.
https://www.anyf.ca/
I knew what sex was, but it was never happening to me or anybody i knew. Also pot was unheard of. I had no idea how to get ahold of it and neither did my friends. Also we didn't really care because we didn't feel the need to smoke it.Red Squirrel wrote: Yeah it's horrible now. At 14 I did not even know what sex was, or what weed was. It's crazy that people this age are all into that stuff now.
My 10th grade daughter has 370 photos of herself on her facebook page, and I just scanned through all of them. Yep, she had one taken in the bathroom. Only she wasn't making a sour face; she was wearing some sort of mud bath facial stuff.flowergirlajg wrote: That in teenager's Facebook pictures, they post a pic taken in their bathroom, with their phone, making a face like they just ate something sour?
xDD
Random topic, but hey, am I the only one who noticed this?
I find a certain amount of irony in the idea of not being prepared while the body is prepared. Consequently debate will rise on when someone is actually prepared to give birth. Because biology isn't used as a standard the immediate standard adopted is marriage.flowergirlajg wrote:
And the sex thing, kids are so stupid... they ride on their hormones and never give a thought to what happens next.
I've put myself to abstinence, just the idea of getting pregnant before marrige scares me-- How can I feed a child without a father being there? I would be making the rest of it's life miserable because I was unprepared.
There are numerous things a child needs that are separate from a woman's biologically mature body. The mature body is needed for the actual birth, but being prepared for the child's material and emotional needs is another thing altogether.scherzo wrote: I find a certain amount of irony in the idea of not being prepared while the body is prepared. Consequently debate will rise on when someone is actually prepared to give birth. Because biology isn't used as a standard the immediate standard adopted is marriage.
Your choice is a good one, However I believe the onus or burden shifts with age, Starting and stopping when someone is physically ready for child birth.
I have to agree here. The biology is there, no doubt, but society has changed a lot through the course of human history. In the early days of man there was easily an advantage to give birth earlier (and thus more frequently over a person's life span), but in those times not every child survived, and for those that did, the burden of child rearing was more distributed among the family and tribe. But times have changed. Society is more complicated, and priorities have shifted from simple survival to quality of life, and the responsibility of child rearing has become more focused on the parents and immediate family (let's sidestep things like school and day care for the moment).Bookworm wrote:There are numerous things a child needs that are separate from a woman's biologically mature body. The mature body is needed for the actual birth, but being prepared for the child's material and emotional needs is another thing altogether.scherzo wrote: I find a certain amount of irony in the idea of not being prepared while the body is prepared. Consequently debate will rise on when someone is actually prepared to give birth. Because biology isn't used as a standard the immediate standard adopted is marriage.
Your choice is a good one, However I believe the onus or burden shifts with age, Starting and stopping when someone is physically ready for child birth.
Stasi wrote: Hmmm, funny how the thread went from an observation about a common, stupid face people make in their self-pics to a discussion about social evolution versus biology. It kind of reminds me of that thread that started out with a question as to whether or not Canadians hate Americans and ended as a rant about how people don't have a good variety of options or sufficient recourse when their elected officials do something they don't like. Isn't there a forum for serious discussion/debates?
feel free to exclude yourself from the topic, as it was open ended and my comments were in direct relation to the thread, I feel that I have not offended the intent of the topic/discussion in any way.Random topic, but hey, am I the only one who noticed this?
Bookworm wrote:
There are numerous things a child needs that are separate from a woman's biologically mature body. The mature body is needed for the actual birth, but being prepared for the child's material and emotional needs is another thing altogether.
I do not disagree with your comments, as Bookworm suggests, "being prepared for the child's material and emotional needs is another thing" is not a biological test, and manadren, "times have changed. Society is more complicated" is also not a biological test.manadren wrote:
I have to agree here. The biology is there, no doubt, but society has changed a lot through the course of human history. In the early days of man there was easily an advantage to give birth earlier (and thus more frequently over a person's life span), but in those times not every child survived, and for those that did, the burden of child rearing was more distributed among the family and tribe. But times have changed. Society is more complicated, and priorities have shifted from simple survival to quality of life, and the responsibility of child rearing has become more focused on the parents and immediate family (let's sidestep things like school and day care for the moment).
Though I do agree there is a certain irony in this. However, the simple fact is that in this case our cultural and societal evolution has outpaced biology.
scherzo wrote:Stasi wrote: Hmmm, funny how the thread went from an observation about a common, stupid face people make in their self-pics to a discussion about social evolution versus biology. It kind of reminds me of that thread that started out with a question as to whether or not Canadians hate Americans and ended as a rant about how people don't have a good variety of options or sufficient recourse when their elected officials do something they don't like. Isn't there a forum for serious discussion/debates?
feel free to exclude yourself from the topic, as it was open ended and my comments were in direct relation to the thread, I feel that I have not offended the intent of the topic/discussion in any way.Random topic, but hey, am I the only one who noticed this?
The timing as to what point they should be moved is a big factor. There are any number of "lighter stuff" topics that may cause someone to have a "deeper" comment. Red's thread "16 cheeseburgers" had me commenting about heart disease, which made him mention the Canadian health care system, which could lead someone to talk about healthcare in general. There certainly is a point at which such a discussion would be more appropriate in the discussion/debate segment, but the flow of conversation makes it hard to tell at what point that move would be best made. I suppose Manadren and Red do need to be on their toes a bit more, now that some of us here have started visiting a bit more regularly again.Stasi wrote: Just saying that there's been more serious, heavy discussion lately in a forum meant for lighter stuff. It wasn't an attack on you, it was more of a suggestion to the mods/admins that maybe topics like this ought to be moved to the serious discussion/debate forum.
But how does your "shifting burdens" test meet the needs of the child better than marriage? Sure, there are some single women who would be able to meet the child's needs better than some married couples, but on the whole, the married couples have a much greater probability of meeting those needs.scherzo wrote: However neither the child's material/emotional or Social needs can be satisfied by the test of "marriage". This is why I have adopted the "shifting burden" test. Simply put, it can be expected that a 14 yr old not have a child, however as time progresses and the female is closer to Menopause, one can no longer expect the female not to procreate, or for that matter enjoy their body.
Bookworm,Oct 17 2009, 10:35 AM wrote:Well, you propose your argument from the view of the child, however mine is proposed from the view of the woman.scherzo,Oct 16 2009, 10:26 PM wrote:but on the whole, the married couples have a much greater probability of meeting those needs.
"one can no longer expect the female not to procreate"
Given one cannot be prepared whether in marriage or not, then by default one can no longer expect the female not to have a child. The preferred arrangement to have a child maybe marriage, However this standard does not allow single females not married to have children, and this is the worst possible outcome if having a child is important. If having children is not important, than why have children? Obviously "Society" has placed a higher value on having a child over not having a child, and this has met one of the criteria mentioned by manadren, "Society is more complicated, and priorities have shifted from simple survival to quality of life" This actually mets the other two criteria as well, "material and emotional" needs.
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3945, old post ID:69277
Well, my argument from the view of the child recognizes that the needs of the child for food, shelter, and even emotional attachment, are life-and-death needs. The "need" of the woman to procreate is not a life-and-death need, and I purposely put the word "need" in quotations, since I do not see the conception of a choild upon the mother's physical maturity to even be a legitimate need.scherzo wrote: Well, you propose your argument from the view of the child, however mine is proposed from the view of the woman.
"one can no longer expect the female not to procreate"
Given that one is MORE prepared in marriage than not, then it IS reasonable to expect a woman to wait.Given one cannot be prepared whether in marriage or not, then by default one can no longer expect the female not to have a child.
On the contrary, the worst possible outcome is to actually HAVE the child if the child cannot be cared for properly. This is what is wrong with your perspective "from the view of the woman." You are making the HAVING of the child to be more important than the caring for the child.The preferred arrangement to have a child maybe marriage, However this standard does not allow single females not married to have children, and this is the worst possible outcome if having a child is important.
As a father of children, why did you have children?Bookworm wrote:Well, my argument from the view of the child recognizes that the needs of the child for food, shelter, and even emotional attachment, are life-and-death needs. The "need" of the woman to procreate is not a life-and-death need, and I purposely put the word "need" in quotations, since I do not see the conception of a choild upon the mother's physical maturity to even be a legitimate need.scherzo wrote: Well, you propose your argument from the view of the child, however mine is proposed from the view of the woman.
"one can no longer expect the female not to procreate"
Given that one is MORE prepared in marriage than not, then it IS reasonable to expect a woman to wait.Given one cannot be prepared whether in marriage or not, then by default one can no longer expect the female not to have a child.
On the contrary, the worst possible outcome is to actually HAVE the child if the child cannot be cared for properly. This is what is wrong with your perspective "from the view of the woman." You are making the HAVING of the child to be more important than the caring for the child.The preferred arrangement to have a child maybe marriage, However this standard does not allow single females not married to have children, and this is the worst possible outcome if having a child is important.
What difference does it make why I had chilfren?scherzo wrote:
As a father of children, why did you have children?