Do you want to have kids?

[SCM123ABC]

Yes but no little girl I planning on adopting a black prepubescent boy wilth mild disability (to be my heir) from foster care/domestic adoption and then adopting two teen girls with severe disabilities internationally however I do plan to genetically create the "perfect little girl" as granddaughter I already have name picked out she going to be little blonde green eyed girl with all the physical disabilities I can give her that won't affect her appearance or lifespan (just like Phoebe she's my new Phoebe)

[Curson]

Yes, I'd like to have a family of my own. I want to experience love and being with someone I can be vulnerable around, though this generation seems to be very rife and rampant with cheating and adultery being more exposed in the digital age since everyone has smartphones and access to the Internet.

[SCM123ABC]

I would adopt but it’s expensive. Probably when I have a good stable job.

I know right? It's why I'm trying to get a Masters Degree and even then you can only get a little bit you can't it a lot it's so

[Kylelomaz]

I have a daughter. I agree with most of your statements. A few things to consider, though.

You will likely be raising your kid with your wife who will probably have a more important role than you. Child raising philosophy is something you’ll need to talk about and negotiate.

As Justin said, there are some things on your list that are just illegal. Or at the very least will raise red flags.

You will be raising your kid as part of society. You have a responsibility to ensure they can integrate in that society. If they are too radically different then I think you might actually be causing problems which is irresponsible. Even if you promote nudism you can’t have your kid just randomly take off their clothes at kindergarten.

There are individual differences. Some foetuses might masturbate. My daughter didn’t show any interest in it as a toddler. Introducing her to masturbation would’ve been imposing my ideas onto her, not letting her explore freely.

I think the timeline may be a little different to what you’re imagining. At least for most kids. A 3 year old often is only just starting to ask about genitals. They might be interested in learning to read, but they might not. Especially if they’ve gotten into tech, which they likely will. Unless you’re willing to go without a phone yourself. That’s probably the only way you could raise a kid without screens.

I think you’re also missing one thing. All of this philosophy comes crashing against the reality of a kid that is hungry, tired or uncooperative. Recognizing the individuality of your kid also means accepting that they might reject all of your teachings- including sex positive ones. Rather than being happy you taught them about sex, your. 14-year-old might learn differently at school, believe that, and report you as a groomer. You need to be prepared for THAT possibility, too.

But overall, I do think the general direction of your parenting philosophy is sound. Just recognize the limits of philosophy in parenting.

(Also please don’t quote the entirety of such long posts! Clip part of it and just quote that.)

Im female. IM the one with the most important role lol. Thats one of the reasons I am excited to have kids, I fully control the narrative. But I agree with what you say, I will be subtle about it, but still sex positive, I am prepared for the posibillity that my kid will be another sex facist and hate me, but I need to at least try

I’m a bit surprised that you are woman I had assumed you were a dude

[Kylelomaz]

Yes but no little girl I planning on adopting a black prepubescent boy wilth mild disability (to be my heir) from foster care/domestic adoption and then adopting two teen girls with severe disabilities internationally however I do plan to genetically create the "perfect little girl" as granddaughter I already have name picked out she going to be little blonde green eyed girl with all the physical disabilities I can give her that won't affect her appearance or lifespan (just like Phoebe she's my new Phoebe)

Hi haven’t seen you around before I’m Kyle.
I understand you are American as who’s from another country I find your negro boys to be so cute
However why do you want them to have disabilities.
So who’s phoebe cause from the way i interpreted it sounds like you know a phoebe?
Ps granddaughter sounds gorgeous minus the disabilities, I find girl with blonde hair blue eyes to be so attractive.
That’s good that you are Christian what branch do you belong to,I’m Catholic but non practicing.

[Jim Burton]

I think you may be talking to a troll, and in either event he is suspended after carrying out abusive actions and being given a period to cool down. We take lenient actions against trolls, at least initially, but users should also be encouraged to show scepticism towards the claims of others, especially those that might result from mental illness or paranoia.

[Kylelomaz]

Yes but no little girl I planning on adopting a black prepubescent boy wilth mild disability (to be my heir) from foster care/domestic adoption and then adopting two teen girls with severe disabilities internationally however I do plan to genetically create the "perfect little girl" as granddaughter I already have name picked out she going to be little blonde green eyed girl with all the physical disabilities I can give her that won't affect her appearance or lifespan (just like Phoebe she's my new Phoebe)

Hi haven’t seen you around before I’m Kyle.
I understand you are American as who’s from another country I find your negro boys to be so cute
However why do you want them to have disabilities.
So who’s phoebe cause from the way i interpreted it sounds like you know a phoebe?
Ps granddaughter sounds gorgeous minus the disabilities, I find girl with blonde hair blue eyes to be so attractive.
That’s good that you are Christian what branch do you belong to,I’m Catholic but non practicing.

I'm glad to have a female MAP who thinks the same way as me, I'm gay, but I want to have a child too, are you thinking of starting a family together? like Co-parenting

Hi yes I dream of sharing on my bloodline to the next generation but at the right time it’s not a good time to be starting a family with the cost of living,all the other stuff that’s going on, hard to get a girlfriend these days.
Just so we are clear I’m a guy.
Why are you so desperate to have a family you have your hole life ahead of you don’t want to get your hopes up but having a family can sometimes be a big burden be careful who you choose mate with they can divorce you take your assets and runaway with your kids.
So what is your taste in kids?

[FlowerLurker]

as an aromantic and asexual person, as well as an autistic and highly depressed one, I do not in any way want to have kids. it is a responsibility i will never be able to manage nor by myself or with someone else. but, if raising kids were a little simpler, I would've gladly passed my worldview as well as pro-map ideas onto them, just as i would encourage them to be gender-nonconforming, expressing themselves in any way they like, etc. just give them love and freedom I never had.

[John_Doe]

I think it's a huge mistake to assume that your children will share the same unconventional views that you do (which I don't think you do, opening poster, that's just a general point). I won't get into what I agree or disagree with on your list, I appreciate the anti-violence stance.

I would not be a good father. I am not good with children, I am very asocial and need alone time/privacy and I'm just not stable or competent enough to care for someone else. I also don't want to bring children into the world. It would be ideal (I'd rather all possible sentient beings exist, in ideal enough circumstances) but I'm not convinced that most people will ultimately have had overall decent lives at the time they die, if many do it would not be worth the risk; the most painful life practically possible is worse than the most pleasurable life practically possible would be good (who would even bother saying with a straight face, "I've had an overall pleasurable life." It sounds almost comical, especially or at least after a certain age, but I'm being somewhat rhetorical, I'll allow for the possibility. I would note, however, that few people are in a position to judge the totality of their life at their current age and even that we often downplay past trauma in hindsight; as part of the recovery process perhaps). There's no question in my mind that I would have been overall better off not having come into existence, I am NOT looking forward to the next 30-40ish years but I don't want to get into anti-natalism and the mixed bag of death.

I've often thought that if I had children I would avoid 'pressuring' them into adopting my position, not from a relativistic 'accept all views as equally valid' perspective or even some non-interference policy for its own sake but in not wanting to alienate them (to put them in a position of having to 'rebel' against me later on if they start really thinking for themselves), not wanting to give them the impression that my love for them is conditioned on shared beliefs/ideals/values and because I want them to adopt my position for the right reason (i.e. their own experience of happiness and/or suffering), and not because they just accept my authority at face value. I would only share my beliefs with them and encourage them to think critically about what I'm proposing (then again, as I read over this, it's not as though I'd tolerate behavior that clearly de-valued the happiness or suffering of others so maybe there's some inconsistency on my part because it's hard to shake conventional ideals we're raised by. To say that only happiness is inherently good is 'controversial' but 'everyone deserves happiness' is benign by conventional standards and I'm only really cautious about 'asserting' or being 'pushy' about the former so that might say something about my life-long conditioning. To be fair, I don't believe that one is immoral because they view something that's neutral to be good or bad but because they don't recognize the goodness and badness of happiness and suffering, at the same time viewing something other than suffering as inherently bad is immoral by this standard because it necessarily implies not wanting it to be a source of happiness for others). As threatened as I am by other hedonists I would love to have some fantasy relationship with a basically consistent person who shares my core worldview (my core worldview would be 'everyone's/only happiness and suffering is intrinsically good and bad' with introspection or personal experience as the epistemic justification for this, so I wouldn't consider hedonists who are nihilists or hedonists who are moral realists who don't justify our position under epistemic solipsism to be 'my tribe' in terms of core philosophical beliefs/values/ideals, which isn't to suggest that I have more or less of an emotional attachment to people or respect for them based on their formal beliefs but I can in some matter-of-fact sense say that hedonists who are moral realists and epistemic solipsists are 'my people.' In fact, I wouldn't consider moral nihilists or relativists who find hedonism 'personally appealing' to be true hedonists to begin with since they don't actually believe that suffering is bad; as moral nihilists they claim that it's neutral despite 'considering' it to be bad which is akin to 'considering' a triangle a rectangle while admitting that it's 'technically' a triangle. The worst thing would be conflict with someone who shares what I've outlined as my core worldview). In a fantasy scenario completely removed from the real world I think I would be more interested in having a daughter than a son, a man can be more nurturing with a daughter (although if we're talking about fantasy then I guess the social norms of our world wouldn't matter) and I'd be more excited by a relationship that has some sexual or romantic tension with someone who shares my core worldview (I can imagine how disgusted and revolted most people would feel if they found out that their parent was interested in them in that way so, to be clear, this is a fantasy scenario I'm outlining. If I had a real-life daughter and was even remotely attracted to her to begin with I would keep it to myself, and I could care about a son or daughter I wasn't attracted to. To be honest, I'm really not interested in having children though). Maybe in a fantasy world I could have romantic relationships with my 'wife' and daughter and she could be sexually/romantically intimate with both me and our son, or both our children if that's how they roll, and the kids could be with each other in that way too (I'm not sure I could be a family man though, maybe if they shared my core worldview and we had that bond, but I'd probably prefer something like 'solo polyamory' or emotionally intimate fwb relationships).

I almost understand where some 'conservatives' are coming from with the idea of one's purpose being family because if you don't want to have children and continue your 'legacy' (although there are different non-genetic legacies one can have. For me, it would be my philosophical/ethical ideas) it's harder, for many people, to find something to live for, especially if one has no friends or emotional attachments. What do you live for? The weekend? Movies and tv shows and novels? Your hobbies? I'm not saying that you can't have a fulfilling life, it's just harder for me to think that such a person is likely to have an overall pleasurable life, the same is true for many people with children but their 'greatest desire' has been fulfilled and most people aren't going to claim that happiness is the single only thing that justifies procreation. Pronatalism is not ideologically inconsistent with pan-hedonism but who realistically, throughout human history, has ever really justified intentional procreation on wanting their prospective/potential children to experience happiness alone without a belief in an afterlife that would compensate for all the heartache and grief in this one?

Life is just not inherently beautiful and compassion requires acknowledging that. There is something almost spiritual about the clarity that hedonism gives me but I don't want to go into a tangent, so I'll resist the urge to get into some of my feelings about oblivion and how negative hedonism is emotionally appealing in giving me a reason to look forward to that despite being repugnant in its implications generally etc.

I could start a separate thread for this but I wonder how many people on here are or feel they could/would be attracted to their own children. The Westermark Effect wouldn't apply (if there's any truth to it, it would only somewhat desensitize people to those they'd otherwise be attracted to, I'm sure) so I'd imagine that many parents would be attracted to children who belonged to whatever age groups they preferred. What are people's views on that? Does a child being your child make things more exciting or do/would you have stronger romantic feelings for them because of that, and so on.

So far I've only read the first and last pages, and wasted my day largely on this.

[Officerkrupke]

I think it's a huge mistake to assume that your children will share the same unconventional views that you do (which I don't think you do, opening poster, that's just a general point). I won't get into what I agree or disagree with on your list, I appreciate the anti-violence stance.

I would not be a good father. I am not good with children, I am very asocial and need alone time/privacy and I'm just not stable or competent enough to care for someone else. I also don't want to bring children into the world. It would be ideal (I'd rather all possible sentient beings exist, in ideal enough circumstances) but I'm not convinced that most people will ultimately have had overall decent lives at the time they die, if many do it would not be worth the risk; the most painful life practically possible is worse than the most pleasurable life practically possible would be good (who would even bother saying with a straight face, "I've had an overall pleasurable life." It sounds almost comical, especially or at least after a certain age, but I'm being somewhat rhetorical, I'll allow for the possibility. I would note, however, that few people are in a position to judge the totality of their life at their current age and even that we often downplay past trauma in hindsight; as part of the recovery process perhaps). There's no question in my mind that I would have been overall better off not having come into existence, I am NOT looking forward to the next 30-40ish years but I don't want to get into anti-natalism and the mixed bag of death.

I've often thought that if I had children I would avoid 'pressuring' them into adopting my position, not from a relativistic 'accept all views as equally valid' perspective or even some non-interference policy for its own sake but in not wanting to alienate them (to put them in a position of having to 'rebel' against me later on if they start really thinking for themselves), not wanting to give them the impression that my love for them is conditioned on shared beliefs/ideals/values and because I want them to adopt my position for the right reason (i.e. their own experience of happiness and/or suffering), and not because they just accept my authority at face value. I would only share my beliefs with them and encourage them to think critically about what I'm proposing (then again, as I read over this, it's not as though I'd tolerate behavior that clearly de-valued the happiness or suffering of others so maybe there's some inconsistency on my part because it's hard to shake conventional ideals we're raised by. To say that only happiness is inherently good is 'controversial' but 'everyone deserves happiness' is benign by conventional standards and I'm only really cautious about 'asserting' or being 'pushy' about the former so that might say something about my life-long conditioning. To be fair, I don't believe that one is immoral because they view something that's neutral to be good or bad but because they don't recognize the goodness and badness of happiness and suffering, at the same time viewing something other than suffering as inherently bad is immoral by this standard because it necessarily implies not wanting it to be a source of happiness for others). As threatened as I am by other hedonists I would love to have some fantasy relationship with a basically consistent person who shares my core worldview (my core worldview would be 'everyone's/only happiness and suffering is intrinsically good and bad' with introspection or personal experience as the epistemic justification for this, so I wouldn't consider hedonists who are nihilists or hedonists who are moral realists who don't justify our position under epistemic solipsism to be 'my tribe' in terms of core philosophical beliefs/values/ideals, which isn't to suggest that I have more or less of an emotional attachment to people or respect for them based on their formal beliefs but I can in some matter-of-fact sense say that hedonists who are moral realists and epistemic solipsists are 'my people.' In fact, I wouldn't consider moral nihilists or relativists who find hedonism 'personally appealing' to be true hedonists to begin with since they don't actually believe that suffering is bad; as moral nihilists they claim that it's neutral despite 'considering' it to be bad which is akin to 'considering' a triangle a rectangle while admitting that it's 'technically' a triangle. The worst thing would be conflict with someone who shares what I've outlined as my core worldview). In a fantasy scenario completely removed from the real world I think I would be more interested in having a daughter than a son, a man can be more nurturing with a daughter (although if we're talking about fantasy then I guess the social norms of our world wouldn't matter) and I'd be more excited by a relationship that has some sexual or romantic tension with someone who shares my core worldview (I can imagine how disgusted and revolted most people would feel if they found out that their parent was interested in them in that way so, to be clear, this is a fantasy scenario I'm outlining. If I had a real-life daughter and was even remotely attracted to her to begin with I would keep it to myself, and I could care about a son or daughter I wasn't attracted to. To be honest, I'm really not interested in having children though). Maybe in a fantasy world I could have romantic relationships with my 'wife' and daughter and she could be sexually/romantically intimate with both me and our son, or both our children if that's how they roll, and the kids could be with each other in that way too (I'm not sure I could be a family man though, maybe if they shared my core worldview and we had that bond, but I'd probably prefer something like 'solo polyamory' or emotionally intimate fwb relationships).

I almost understand where some 'conservatives' are coming from with the idea of one's purpose being family because if you don't want to have children and continue your 'legacy' (although there are different non-genetic legacies one can have. For me, it would be my philosophical/ethical ideas) it's harder, for many people, to find something to live for, especially if one has no friends or emotional attachments. What do you live for? The weekend? Movies and tv shows and novels? Your hobbies? I'm not saying that you can't have a fulfilling life, it's just harder for me to think that such a person is likely to have an overall pleasurable life, the same is true for many people with children but their 'greatest desire' has been fulfilled and most people aren't going to claim that happiness is the single only thing that justifies procreation. Pronatalism is not ideologically inconsistent with pan-hedonism but who realistically, throughout human history, has ever really justified intentional procreation on wanting their prospective/potential children to experience happiness alone without a belief in an afterlife that would compensate for all the heartache and grief in this one?

Life is just not inherently beautiful and compassion requires acknowledging that. There is something almost spiritual about the clarity that hedonism gives me but I don't want to go into a tangent, so I'll resist the urge to get into some of my feelings about oblivion and how negative hedonism is emotionally appealing in giving me a reason to look forward to that despite being repugnant in its implications generally etc.

I could start a separate thread for this but I wonder how many people on here are or feel they could/would be attracted to their own children. The Westermark Effect wouldn't apply (if there's any truth to it, it would only somewhat desensitize people to those they'd otherwise be attracted to, I'm sure) so I'd imagine that many parents would be attracted to children who belonged to whatever age groups they preferred. What are people's views on that? Does a child being your child make things more exciting or do/would you have stronger romantic feelings for them because of that, and so on.

So far I've only read the first and last pages, and wasted my day largely on this.

I think this deserves its own post.