The sexocalypse is nigh

Post Reply New Topic

Children sharing the flat in which their parents lived before their birth and can get to school on their own by walking or school bus arguably do not, especially in urban neighborhoods where many people don't own a vehicle anyway, including from poor families who can't afford hockey practice etc. But point taken. I was just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Yes but those children still consume a portion of the electric, heat, water, etc.
They will need their own room by the time they are adolescents / teens especially if there's more than one of them.
I never said kids have to play hockey etc., but that court deems it reasonable and not extravagant if it does happen.
Opportunities like sports, art, music can also earn the child a scholarship for private schools or college.

Not trying to derail. It's just hard for me to leave some of these comments unchecked.
Kids aren't just inconspicuous add-ons who can grow in the corner with little care.

There was a separate thread for this topic once.
Maybe it could be merged.

The only relevance to the topic is to ask whether people avoid sex to avoid having kids. Otherwise is sort of pointless to debate the breakdown of child rearing expenses. Basic life expenses are a challenge for anyone who's not a character in a 90s sitcom.

Of course people avoid sex to avoid having kids.
I should hope so, anyway.
I know I did.
Men in no-Rowe states should be thankful if their partner refrains.

Well people can avoid pregnancy by getting each other off using hands and mouths, but the statistics show no evidence this is happening either. Although most women seem disappointed (in my personal experience) if their partner doesn't give them PIV.

It depends on the person. Some guys “seem disappointed,” too.

When you say "this isn't happening ... " do you mean that people are abstaining entirely, or doing PIV?

Can't people just use condoms and birth control for protection and leave it at that?

Condoms sometimes break. They are not infallible.

Maybe they don’t want to. They could experiment with other forms of sexual pleasure.

PIV sex isn’t obligatory.

Some people don't use birth control for religious reasons, or medical reasons, or personal reasons.
They might use natural planning like temperatures or rhythm.
I imagine those people are abstaining, for fear of an unplanned conception -- esp. in No-Rowe states.


I've never used any form of birth control in my life.

In states that protect abortion rights that works just fine, because if the birth control method or condom fails there is the option to get an abortion.

Also, people forget to take birth control pills. Sometimes individuals who are a**holes refuse to wear condoms or will take them off. Even in the best of circumstances, they aren’t 100% effective, as has already been mentioned.

There’s just a huge number of potential situations which could make abortion necessary.

I wouldn't want to be a guy and trust my partner when she says she took a pill (sorry ladies).
I wouldn't want to be a woman and trust my partner when he says he'll pull out (sorry men).
I wouldn't want to trust a condom.
I wouldn't trust either party to fool around without having PIV impulsively.


I feel very lucky that I don't have the parts, so I don't have to worry.
If I did have the parts, at least I'm not American and abortion is a free, universal medical service here.
I don't know how I'd feel or what I'd do if I were fertile in a No Rowe state.

So basically before roe vs. wade was overturned, no one took sex protection tools seriously for pregnancy, and everyone completely relied on the court to bail them out, should something happen?

Lots of people used protection of some sort, and many others didn’t. That’s probably stayed fairly consistent. Birth control is not foolproof, and there are many different situations that can come up. There’s lots of complexity here. This was all covered in our Roe vs Wade threads weeks ago.