More debate on broodiness

[djpsyche]

Mainly in case ford_prefect42 doesn't come back to my previous post.

"I kinda figure that everyone has an inborn compulsion to reproduce. It's kinda evolutionary."It's an interesting theory and I'd like to pick it apart

Comments

[ford_prefect42]

This was an awful lot of reaction to an "I kinda think" statement

[sushidog]

However, as one of the *last* people that I knew when I was 14-30 that remains without children,
OK, but that's your (necessarily limited) experience; you can't generalise from that. I know literally dozens of people in their late thirties and forties who are happily child-free and regret-free, myself included.

As for "social pressures", tell me, do binobos have "social pressures"? Rats? Sheep? And yet *all* of them reproduce, almost without exception. But bonobos (and rats, and sheep, and every other animal too) don't have an innate urge to reproduce; they have an innate urge to breed. That's a different thing, and you seem to be conflating the two

[ford_prefect42]

Again, you're responding to a fair number of things I either didn't say, or of which I said the opposite.

I wasn't maintaining my prior position based on my (limited) experience, I was explaining why I had come to it to begin with.

I wasn't saying that humans don't have social pressures, I was pointing out that, with or without social pressures, reproduction is near-universal.

I specifically *did* say that it's entirely possible that this is all down to sex drive rather than a desire to reproduce.

In future, you should try to read to the end of a comment before replying.

[sushidog]

Again, you're responding to a fair number of things I either didn't say, or of which I said the opposite.
No, I'm not. I'm responding very specifically to things you did say, an which I've explicitly quoted. I'm not sure why you're claiming otherwise, given that the quotes are right there, in italics, in my comment.

I wasn't maintaining my prior position based on my (limited) experience, I was explaining why I had come to it to begin with.
But you followed with " I won't try to argue that it's logical, or rational, or that it's anything other than selfish. It's primal, but it's there." That makes it sound as though you are still maintaining the same position, not just explaining why you used to think that way.

I wasn't saying that humans don't have social pressures, I was pointing out that, with or without social pressures, reproduction is near-universal.Why bring in the fact that bonobos, rats and sheep don't have social pressure (actually, bonobos do; they ostracise members of the group who misbehave) if not to try and suggest

[ford_prefect42]

This conversation has become pointless.

[djpsyche]

Because she's right.
Also, people have expanded upon the topic, which is absolutely allowable. Having a view on children might not be a direct response to your theories but people are certainly welcome to share that view, just as you were welcome to share your view on "inborn compulsions" on a post that wasn't directly related to that.

[djpsyche]

as one of the *last* people that I knew when I was 14-30 that remains without children, as I spend time with and around children, there's another side to the story. I won't try to argue that it's logical, or rational, or that it's anything other than selfish. It's primal, but it's there.

Just because it's there inside you does not mean it's there inside everyone. I think this is what most people came here to say.

I think when we realise something about ourselves, there is a tendency to assume what we've discovered is a universal truth. For instance, when I realised I was bisexual, it seemed obvious and logical to me that everyone should have the innate capability to find people of all genders attractive and enjoy sex no matter what equipment their partner had. That seemed so self-evident... but it's wrong. As is the assumption that, because you discovered, to your surprise, a primal desire for kids, that means everyone has one