fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2686 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2686 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 059 secrets from Secret Submission Post #384.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

In what world are you living that there's a "scant" possibility of pregnancy when birth control is not used? It's about a 2.5% chance per individual encounter or 80% per year. Maybe you consider those to be acceptable odds for a few minutes' enjoyment, but I sure as hell don't.

If you know damn well you can't afford to have a kid, then what's asinine is taking that risk. Sex is not a necessity of life, it's not even that goddamn important. Where did this idea come from that it's somehow unreasonable to expect adults to exercise a little self-control?

"Where did this idea come from that it's somehow unreasonable to expect adults to exercise a little self-control?"

Because they've never, in the history of the world, been able to.

Adults acting immature and irresponsible and making poor choices isn't some new fucking thing, and it's coming across people who think that things "used to be different" is tiresome as hell. There have been people having kids out of wedlock and having more than they could afford and failing at keeping their pants on (and, in fact, there has typically been a rationalisation or five for certain people [like men] not keeping their pants on. At the end of the 1800s, for example, it was thought that if men weren't fucking things constantly, they'd die. Like, they'd literally die of not having sex) since the dawn of man. The major difference between us and our forebears is that we actually think there's something wrong with killing babies that you don't want (and that's not even generalisable to the entire modern world!).

My mom got pregnant with me when she was on birth control, and then had another pregnancy when she was using spermicide, which ended in a miscarriage. Who knows how many more times it would've happened if my dad hadn't gotten a vasectomy.

Also, what? Sex is a drive. Just because YOU can go without doesn't mean everybody can.

(reply from suspended user)

This is a weird comment. We all know what the necessities of life are - food, water, protection from danger, etc. Sex is not a necessity to live. It is a necessity to reproduce, which is why we have such a strong drive for it, so if everyone stopped having sex* our race would die out. But it isn't an individual necessity for any person to stay alive. It might affect them in some way (I really don't know, having not experienced it myself), but it's not necessary. You won't die if you can't fuck.

*notwithstanding a future scenario where we grew babies in tubes or something. which would be kinda depressing tbh.

No? That is the definition of "necessities of life". They are the things that keep you alive.

How can you justify calling anything other than those a "necessity" though? A thing of great importance, sure, I can agree with that. But a "necessity"? What is your definition of the word "necessity"?

That seems to be rather flawed logic to me. Everyone needs food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and education, but there are plenty of people who are perfectly happy without sex or intimacy or even actively reject it for whatever reason.

I suppose I'm just wary of classing sex as a 'need' because it seems to me like you could use that to justify some skeevy things, like marital rape.

Well, no. The only actual things people need to survive on that list are food and shelter. People can get on without clothing, healthcare, or education. And there are perfectly happy people who do.

Hm, yeah, that puzzled me when I first learned about it. Especially because I was getting along just fine without sex, and still am, even though I'm definitely not asexual. I won't claim though that everyone's experience is going to be the same though.

Logically speaking, you don't need sex to live, and I personally think that people need to consider the consequences of their decisions when I make them. EXTRA BOLD CAVEAT: the government doesn't need to do it for them. I just wish individuals would be more careful.

You and I won't die if we can't fuck. But if everyone on the planet decided not to have sex, then the species would cease to be. From an evolutionary standpoint, that's contrary to survival.

We have to reproduce. The drive to do so is actually the most important of any of our drives, if we adopt a natural view. We have to carry on the species. If we don't, then we are nothing. We are but a blip on the radar.

You sound like an evangelical cis white male.

lol, forreal? Would an evangelical person say "we are but a blip on the radar"??

The drive to do so is actually the most important of any of our drives

It's really, really not.

I'm gonna have to agree here. Survival is our basest drive. If we're dead, sex is pointless. This is especially true because humans take longer - far longer - than the vast majority of all sexually reproducing species to reach sexual maturity.

Did you even read my comment? Because I basically said exactly that

It does not follow, from that statement, that every single human must reproduce with every single impulse they have to do so. Seriously, we all need to have about 2 kids (some people 3) in order to keep our population stable. And that's an average.

I'm super aware, in light of this conversation, how creepy that sounds. Emphasis: some people won't have kids because they DON'T WANT TO, or physically cannot, NOT BECAUSE someone said they shouldn't. Ideally, everyone who wanted to have kids would do so.

Well, it's not like people need to abstain from sex to avoid pregnancy... they just need to avoid unprotected PIV sex.

That's not a guarantee. Protected PIV sex isn't a 100% failsafe against pregnancy. However, I don't think it's necessarily irresponsible to have sex with protection as long as you have a plan on what to do if pregnancy occurs. (again, caveat: personal opinion, has nothing to do with any opinion on legislation)

[ SECRET POST #2686 ]

nayrt

Re: nayrt

Re: nayrt

Re: nayrt

Re: nayrt

Re: nayrt

Re: nayrt

Re: nayrt

Re: nayrt

Re: nayrt

Re: nayrt

Re: nayrt

Re: nayrt

Re: nayrt

Re: nayrt

Re: nayrt

Re: nayrt

Re: nayrt