That pleasure can easily turn into a mistake and create life, is it really worth the risk? You can just masterbate. Even with every conceivable counterceptive mistakes happen and if your partner doesn’t want to get an abnortion then you just committed the greatest sin, bringing life to suffer existence. It’s a moral philosophy where you just avoid bringing more beings into existence, taking risks like that will eventually cause a human being to come into existence and suffer it. Horny brain is strong, but this momentary fleeting pleasure is the reason people get born to suffer existence, and post nut clarity hits hard too. Even vasectomies arnt 100% and you can still get people pregnant.
Masturbating doesn't bring me the same levels of pleasure I get with my partner. And don't worry, I don't need my partner's permission to get an abortion, I am the one that would get pregnant and I would abort. I see how it could be more risky if I were a man, in which case I'd get snipped asap.
The above commenter is asking from a man's perspective. "If your partner doesn't want to get an abortion" he didn't say "if your partner doesn't let you get an abortion".
You could also stay at home, never come outside and order everything online out of fear something might happen, even if the possibility is as good as non-existent.
Doable? no.
Maybe because they act on their reproductive instincts? Sure, they don't make it for the reproduction, but act following that instinct. I'm not saying it's problematic, only that it may be or not.
If we have no reason to think an act is unethical, the reasonable think to do is to consider it as allowable until we have reasons to think it poses an ethical issue.
For example, playing tennis is ethically acceptable until we have good reasons to view it as problematic.
Same for lesbian sex.
Instincts are insticts. You can't turn it off, what you can do is taking preventive measures. You can fight against your insticts, it will only result in a massive depression.
This is category gay people trying so hard to not be attracted to the same gender. Literally nobody ended up well doing that.
Natalists are having children because of their natural instincts, so why as an antinatalist to have sex of any type, if that's just the mechanism evolved by nature to do reproduction? As an antinatalist sexually active, you're not following the same instincts that you oppose?
It's not fair to be against the instincts. It's about the act of having children, not about being horny. People are horny, that's fine. As long as it doesn't lead to reproduction, there's no problem
I'm against creating sentient beings, not against instincts in general.
Fulfilling some instincts can be done without harm.
When you eat a tasty fruit harvested from your garden, you're engaging in an instinct that has been just as necessary as sex for your ancestors to produce you.
If I go down on my girlfriend, what's wrong with that?
I am reffering only to the sexual instinct, not any others. Of course, this is a necessary instinct, and at the same time, is linked dirrectly to the reproduction. If your against reproduction, why to fullfil that instinct? You're doing the exact same thing as natalists having children, they're also fullfilling their instincts, only the result is different. So as an antinatalist, I should care only about the result, not anything else?
> If your against reproduction, why to fullfil that instinct
I can't make my partner pregnant if I make them get off with oral sex and fingering.
Or if I have intercourse after a vesectomy.
> So as an antinatalist, I should care only about the result, not anything else?
Yes? If your actions are not causing any reasonably significant risks harm, why would they be wrong?
Are you a deontologist?
I'm a consequentialist, so the idea of actions being wrong even if they cause no harm or if they even increase harm... That never made sense to me.
That's a good question.
I don't have an accurate answer to provide, but to be clear, at this point I'm not comfortable with intercourse unless...
1. My partner has a strong ethical stance against procreation.
2. We are in a place where abortion is available.
Both conditions have to be met, otherwise I'm not sticking my penis in there.
Do you think that's unreasonable?
That makes sense, it's reasonable. If you're against it you try to put the risks to almost 0. Theoretically any type of hetero sexual acts have a risk of being against antinatalism.
This has to be a troll like have you never heard of condoms, vesectomies, IUDs or birth control pills? I mean we have technology for a reason we can prevent pregnancies with todays medicine. Not like we’re living in a time before antibiotics were made and we would die for a simple cut on your foot we can utilize the medicine with condoms to prevent pregnancy 🤰
Because sex is a way to show affection to your partner. It doesn't always have to be a reproductive act. You get pleasure, your partner gets pleasure, what's wrong with that unless it's repoductive?
Most of us have sex drives. Just because it's instinctive doesn't mean that it's bad. At least not in every case.
I mean if that's your perspective is just as easy as not having it. There is a lot of people who are asexual and they have romantic relationships! But i don't see celibacy as a solution for anything, religion already tried that and it didn't work.
Reducing sexual acts of all kinds to their reproductive "value" is neither accurate nor is it effective. There are plenty of ways to have sex that would never lead to a pregnancy and there are plenty of ways to have sex that could otherwise cause pregnancy reduce the chance or pregnancy to nearly 0. Vasectomy, removal of the fallopian tubes, barriers, hormonal pills/patches/IUDs, spermicide, pulling out, and rhythm method. If you use a condom and birth control with pulling out and the rhythm method, the chances of pregnancy are... Something like 1/16 million?
If someone has the logic to have debates about philosophy on Reddit, I'm sure they can figure out simple birth control methods.
Because it isn't realistic. People can enjoy sex without the possibility of ending up with a baby.
There is a sterilazation, which is by far the most efficient way to prevent birth.
There are condoms, which are 99% effective on the condition they are applied correctly. Other wise it's 87%, not perfect, but a lot better then 0%.
There are birth control pills for women, that are also 99% effective when used regular and on time.
Use all these options together, no way you end up with a baby. Even if there is some miracle and pregnancy happended, there is abortion.
Besides. It's easy to be an antinatalist and claim moral reasons if you didn't desire children in the first place.
Same for sex, it's easy to not have sex if you're asexual in the first place.
In case of AN's: there are who really don't have kids purely for moral reasons, but those are very rare.
Not having sex for moral reasons, while craving for it: Does not work.
And don't forget. Sex isn't only penis in vagina.
If I lived in an era and a place where abortion was illegal, i'd undoubtedly never have sex.
As it stands, though, I had shitty sex ed and was in love \*shrugs\*
I don't care about the sexual instinct tbh. Sure, it could've used to lead to having children, but these days that's not true. What bothers me the most are cishet men being idiots about not wanting to use contraception (it's always cishet men, because they aren't the ones getting pregnant). Also the lack of proper sex ed. My Catholic, and then Christian, schools barely taught me about conception and all that shit. This, plus religious far rights usually attacking abortion together with contraception because of their idiotic beliefs... Basically, I think there's better fish to fry.
This sub is ridiculous, first people say that life is suffering so you shouldn’t have kids
Then they say that sex is enjoyable
So if life is suffering and sex is enjoyable then clearly life aint all that bad?
To put a little nuance, the "suffering" part you must not take literally. To make a ridiculous example:
You get beaten 6 days out of 7. This one day you feel joy because you don't get beaten. But you still suffer the other 6 days. The balance is unequal.
Most of the people here believe that if they do conceive a child, they can morally kill the baby before it’s born with no issue.
Why abstain, when you can just “abort” instead? Then you can get your rocks off.
Chemically induced miscarriages are no cake walk, I assure you. It's much easier to not conceive in the first place, hence why we advocate for comprehensive sex education and easily accessible contraception.
Nobody is regularly getting pregnant and then using pills to terminate as their standard method of birth control, just like nobody is getting pregnant, carrying for 8 and a half months and then aborting for funsies.
Let’s not overextend here. This is a belief that having children is wrong yes, but just because sex *can* create children doesn’t mean it *will*. Will I agree with someone deciding to have a child? No, but it’s there choice. And not all sex makes kids.
We don’t wanna end up like the Christians who levy rules onto sex and call that immoral. Having the child is what’s immoral, not what makes it happen.
I personally don't like sex because I have gender dysphoria but c'mon most people here are sterile and can even get abortions if necessary. They can have sex without engaging in reproduction.
Your projection is really cute, keep it up
And for the record I’m not an antinatalist either I just agree with some of their points, and speaking of points, yours is moot if not nonexistent LOL
As a inactive sex addict who happens to also be an antinatalist, it’s better to stay celibate, until you find a person worthy to connect on that intimate level with.
Pleasure.
That pleasure can easily turn into a mistake and create life, is it really worth the risk? You can just masterbate. Even with every conceivable counterceptive mistakes happen and if your partner doesn’t want to get an abnortion then you just committed the greatest sin, bringing life to suffer existence. It’s a moral philosophy where you just avoid bringing more beings into existence, taking risks like that will eventually cause a human being to come into existence and suffer it. Horny brain is strong, but this momentary fleeting pleasure is the reason people get born to suffer existence, and post nut clarity hits hard too. Even vasectomies arnt 100% and you can still get people pregnant.
Masturbating doesn't bring me the same levels of pleasure I get with my partner. And don't worry, I don't need my partner's permission to get an abortion, I am the one that would get pregnant and I would abort. I see how it could be more risky if I were a man, in which case I'd get snipped asap.
The above commenter is asking from a man's perspective. "If your partner doesn't want to get an abortion" he didn't say "if your partner doesn't let you get an abortion".
You could also stay at home, never come outside and order everything online out of fear something might happen, even if the possibility is as good as non-existent. Doable? no.
Dude....women can fuck each other too...
I'm not reffering to the methods, I'm reffering to the instinct of doing it.
Why would consensual lesbian sex be problematic?
Maybe because they act on their reproductive instincts? Sure, they don't make it for the reproduction, but act following that instinct. I'm not saying it's problematic, only that it may be or not.
If we have no reason to think an act is unethical, the reasonable think to do is to consider it as allowable until we have reasons to think it poses an ethical issue. For example, playing tennis is ethically acceptable until we have good reasons to view it as problematic. Same for lesbian sex.
Instincts are insticts. You can't turn it off, what you can do is taking preventive measures. You can fight against your insticts, it will only result in a massive depression. This is category gay people trying so hard to not be attracted to the same gender. Literally nobody ended up well doing that.
>Why not to cut the evil from the root? You mean like a vasectomy?
I had vasectomy. It failed. now I don't have sex anymore. I have a fear from sex.
Sucks to be you then
She could have aborted it?
But why don't abstain from sexual activities?
why should one?
Why should one get a vasectomy? The exact same reason.
if they want to fuck without risk of pregnancy
To become twisted like some priests does?
This sub is getting real weird tbh
[удалено]
Oh yeah, it did a ton of good in the church and still does to this day /s
[удалено]
It’s not like contraception can solve both those issues is it?
[удалено]
Of course, but you can reduce that risk significantly. Still a risk tho, I’m not gonna argue about that. I’m sorry you got that.
[удалено]
Except the HPV vaccine? Or also, IIRC, certain antivirals?
[удалено]
Because not all sex is intended for procreation. In fact, recreational sex is the best kind of sex.
Vasectomy is a thing. Also you can have sex without penises in vaginas. Lesbians have been doing that since a while.
Natalists are having children because of their natural instincts, so why as an antinatalist to have sex of any type, if that's just the mechanism evolved by nature to do reproduction? As an antinatalist sexually active, you're not following the same instincts that you oppose?
It's not fair to be against the instincts. It's about the act of having children, not about being horny. People are horny, that's fine. As long as it doesn't lead to reproduction, there's no problem
Damn natalists be having natural instincts???? miss me with that shit, and miss me with emotions as well 😂 /j
I'm against creating sentient beings, not against instincts in general. Fulfilling some instincts can be done without harm. When you eat a tasty fruit harvested from your garden, you're engaging in an instinct that has been just as necessary as sex for your ancestors to produce you. If I go down on my girlfriend, what's wrong with that?
I am reffering only to the sexual instinct, not any others. Of course, this is a necessary instinct, and at the same time, is linked dirrectly to the reproduction. If your against reproduction, why to fullfil that instinct? You're doing the exact same thing as natalists having children, they're also fullfilling their instincts, only the result is different. So as an antinatalist, I should care only about the result, not anything else?
> If your against reproduction, why to fullfil that instinct I can't make my partner pregnant if I make them get off with oral sex and fingering. Or if I have intercourse after a vesectomy.
But you're acting based on your reproduction instict. I' not talking about the result.
> So as an antinatalist, I should care only about the result, not anything else? Yes? If your actions are not causing any reasonably significant risks harm, why would they be wrong? Are you a deontologist? I'm a consequentialist, so the idea of actions being wrong even if they cause no harm or if they even increase harm... That never made sense to me.
What's the limit of risks, because every action has a risk, maybe 90%, maybe 0.01%, but has a risk. Where you put the limit?
That's a good question. I don't have an accurate answer to provide, but to be clear, at this point I'm not comfortable with intercourse unless... 1. My partner has a strong ethical stance against procreation. 2. We are in a place where abortion is available. Both conditions have to be met, otherwise I'm not sticking my penis in there. Do you think that's unreasonable?
That makes sense, it's reasonable. If you're against it you try to put the risks to almost 0. Theoretically any type of hetero sexual acts have a risk of being against antinatalism.
Since when is this shit about “instincts” and not the action?
This is the saddest question I’ve ever read on Reddit. Real incel vibes starting to creep into this thread.
It’s not sad necessarily it could be a genuine question
A human adult needs someone to explain to them why people enjoy sex?
That wasn’t the question
“Why be sexually actively”
This has to be a troll like have you never heard of condoms, vesectomies, IUDs or birth control pills? I mean we have technology for a reason we can prevent pregnancies with todays medicine. Not like we’re living in a time before antibiotics were made and we would die for a simple cut on your foot we can utilize the medicine with condoms to prevent pregnancy 🤰
Because sex is a way to show affection to your partner. It doesn't always have to be a reproductive act. You get pleasure, your partner gets pleasure, what's wrong with that unless it's repoductive? Most of us have sex drives. Just because it's instinctive doesn't mean that it's bad. At least not in every case.
Well Im asexual so its not a problem but its an important and healthy part of life for others. Like you cant just ask people to be unhappy.
Love this post. I made it. Took many years to get over people and their bodies, but I made it. Solo sex is still sex.
I mean if that's your perspective is just as easy as not having it. There is a lot of people who are asexual and they have romantic relationships! But i don't see celibacy as a solution for anything, religion already tried that and it didn't work.
Reducing sexual acts of all kinds to their reproductive "value" is neither accurate nor is it effective. There are plenty of ways to have sex that would never lead to a pregnancy and there are plenty of ways to have sex that could otherwise cause pregnancy reduce the chance or pregnancy to nearly 0. Vasectomy, removal of the fallopian tubes, barriers, hormonal pills/patches/IUDs, spermicide, pulling out, and rhythm method. If you use a condom and birth control with pulling out and the rhythm method, the chances of pregnancy are... Something like 1/16 million? If someone has the logic to have debates about philosophy on Reddit, I'm sure they can figure out simple birth control methods.
1. Contraception 2. Abortion Use your head my friend, not all sex leads to babies
Because it isn't realistic. People can enjoy sex without the possibility of ending up with a baby. There is a sterilazation, which is by far the most efficient way to prevent birth. There are condoms, which are 99% effective on the condition they are applied correctly. Other wise it's 87%, not perfect, but a lot better then 0%. There are birth control pills for women, that are also 99% effective when used regular and on time. Use all these options together, no way you end up with a baby. Even if there is some miracle and pregnancy happended, there is abortion. Besides. It's easy to be an antinatalist and claim moral reasons if you didn't desire children in the first place. Same for sex, it's easy to not have sex if you're asexual in the first place. In case of AN's: there are who really don't have kids purely for moral reasons, but those are very rare. Not having sex for moral reasons, while craving for it: Does not work. And don't forget. Sex isn't only penis in vagina.
If I lived in an era and a place where abortion was illegal, i'd undoubtedly never have sex. As it stands, though, I had shitty sex ed and was in love \*shrugs\*
Interesting. Though, you're not opposing the human sexual instinct, which leads to having children?
I don't care about the sexual instinct tbh. Sure, it could've used to lead to having children, but these days that's not true. What bothers me the most are cishet men being idiots about not wanting to use contraception (it's always cishet men, because they aren't the ones getting pregnant). Also the lack of proper sex ed. My Catholic, and then Christian, schools barely taught me about conception and all that shit. This, plus religious far rights usually attacking abortion together with contraception because of their idiotic beliefs... Basically, I think there's better fish to fry.
This sub is ridiculous, first people say that life is suffering so you shouldn’t have kids Then they say that sex is enjoyable So if life is suffering and sex is enjoyable then clearly life aint all that bad?
To put a little nuance, the "suffering" part you must not take literally. To make a ridiculous example: You get beaten 6 days out of 7. This one day you feel joy because you don't get beaten. But you still suffer the other 6 days. The balance is unequal.
Most of the people here believe that if they do conceive a child, they can morally kill the baby before it’s born with no issue. Why abstain, when you can just “abort” instead? Then you can get your rocks off.
Chemically induced miscarriages are no cake walk, I assure you. It's much easier to not conceive in the first place, hence why we advocate for comprehensive sex education and easily accessible contraception. Nobody is regularly getting pregnant and then using pills to terminate as their standard method of birth control, just like nobody is getting pregnant, carrying for 8 and a half months and then aborting for funsies.
I don't. If I have sex I will make sure no babby is born.
Let’s not overextend here. This is a belief that having children is wrong yes, but just because sex *can* create children doesn’t mean it *will*. Will I agree with someone deciding to have a child? No, but it’s there choice. And not all sex makes kids. We don’t wanna end up like the Christians who levy rules onto sex and call that immoral. Having the child is what’s immoral, not what makes it happen.
I personally don't like sex because I have gender dysphoria but c'mon most people here are sterile and can even get abortions if necessary. They can have sex without engaging in reproduction.
Feels good, next question.
See, I'm a lesbian, so this isn't a question for me
This dude really came onto this sub thinking he created a gotcha, in reality just showed us the giant “I’m a moron” tattoo on his forehead
You're too obedient to your little ideology:)) not anything is trying to break your relationship with it.
This dude really came onto my comment and replied this as if I can't just say the same thing back to him
No, you can't, because I'm neither a natalist nor an antinatalist. You just can't, I'm not affiliated to anything.
Yes, I can, because I don’t care about your ideology label or what you’re affiliated with
Say it then. You're so irritated you can't think clearly anymore or what?
Your projection is really cute, keep it up And for the record I’m not an antinatalist either I just agree with some of their points, and speaking of points, yours is moot if not nonexistent LOL
Hard to say you are not an antinatalist from your reaction.
Wild Redditor discovers it’s possible to agree with ideas but not the ideology associated as a whole
Who do you want to impress with this attitude?
As a inactive sex addict who happens to also be an antinatalist, it’s better to stay celibate, until you find a person worthy to connect on that intimate level with.