"Having children does not automatically mean that you become a dribbling idiot, it just means that you have to prioritise."
My point is that you have to proritise *away* from the other pursuits.
"If you resent the fact that you are now responsible for a child"
I'm not. I knew I didn't want children, so I did something about it in advance. I am totally infertile.:)
"then really you should have kept your legs crossed when the time came to make the beast with two backs."
I hate to break this to you, but *lots* of people have great sex and don't get pregnant. There's no need in 2003 to abstain from that form of pleasure with one's partner just because you're childfree. Not even close -- childfree couples tend to have frequent "great" sex (or so they have reported) even once they're married, precisely because they don't have to worry about pregnancy.
How do they manage this, as it is clearly a mystery to you (considering you suggest that one should abstain)? There's the option of sterilization, which is now minimally invasive in both men and women (the option I took) and with rare exception permanent. There's also contraception for those that can't afford the surgical option, and using multiple forms of that can *almost* completely wipe out the chance of a pregnancy. If that fails, then the morning-after pill and abortion are legal in most nations.
"As for your comment that children derail genius, you try and keep a precocious under five year old happy when he has been trapped inside by rain and is bored out of his skull, you'll be suprised at what you can achieve."
This is precisely the kind of thing I (and the article) was talking about. A rainy day inside for a childfree couple could involve working on projects together, talking, etc. -- all things that fall under the socially accepted category of demonstrating genius. Someone that has been stuck inside with a little kid, however, *can't* do any of those things -- he/she is stuck trying to entertain the child so it doesn't destroy things or drive everyone nuts. While you or other child-absorbed people might consider it genius work, the article and the majority of the world are not impressed.
The article (and everyone here) seems to assume that marriage automatically leads to children. There's a large number of adults that marry with absolutely no interest in reproducing, and make sure that no "accidents" can occur to change that. As one friend of mine put it, "I love my partner enough that I don't need a kid to feel fulfilled; we want to focus on sharing a wonderful life together, not be distracted by unwanted third parties."
In fact, in the childfree community, it's generally known that *having children* is what damages the capacity for brilliant work in both genders. The couple's finances and energy are necessarily devoted to their offspring rather than other pursuits, and anything that isn't "child-friendly" in their lives essentially has to be dropped. That doesn't happen when childfree couples meet or marry -- so it's not marriage that derails genius, it's having children.
However, in this child-centric society, few people are willing to acknowledge that one can be happily married without kids or that becoming a parent is detrimental in any way to the rest of one's life. So what you see is articles calling parenthood "marriage" to avoid offending those who have reproduced intentionally or by accident.
My partner and I both have genius IQs, are childfree, successful in academics/career. I had one horrible boyfriend before him; being a stereotypical geek, he lacked a girlfriend despite being in his mid-30s. Rather than slowing one another down, we're constantly learning new things together or from one another. We love being able to spend an evening writing alongside one another, discussing philosophy, studying, or doing other "intellectual" things. If we had kids, *then* all of those pursuits would have to be put on the back burner; it's not whether one has a relationship, but what one does with it that counts.
Slashdot Mirror
"Having children does not automatically mean that you become a dribbling idiot, it just means that you have to prioritise." My point is that you have to proritise *away* from the other pursuits. "If you resent the fact that you are now responsible for a child" I'm not. I knew I didn't want children, so I did something about it in advance. I am totally infertile. :)
"then really you should have kept your legs crossed when the time came to make the beast with two backs."
I hate to break this to you, but *lots* of people have great sex and don't get pregnant. There's no need in 2003 to abstain from that form of pleasure with one's partner just because you're childfree. Not even close -- childfree couples tend to have frequent "great" sex (or so they have reported) even once they're married, precisely because they don't have to worry about pregnancy.
How do they manage this, as it is clearly a mystery to you (considering you suggest that one should abstain)? There's the option of sterilization, which is now minimally invasive in both men and women (the option I took) and with rare exception permanent. There's also contraception for those that can't afford the surgical option, and using multiple forms of that can *almost* completely wipe out the chance of a pregnancy. If that fails, then the morning-after pill and abortion are legal in most nations.
"As for your comment that children derail genius, you try and keep a precocious under five year old happy when he has been trapped inside by rain and is bored out of his skull, you'll be suprised at what you can achieve."
This is precisely the kind of thing I (and the article) was talking about. A rainy day inside for a childfree couple could involve working on projects together, talking, etc. -- all things that fall under the socially accepted category of demonstrating genius. Someone that has been stuck inside with a little kid, however, *can't* do any of those things -- he/she is stuck trying to entertain the child so it doesn't destroy things or drive everyone nuts. While you or other child-absorbed people might consider it genius work, the article and the majority of the world are not impressed.
The article (and everyone here) seems to assume that marriage automatically leads to children. There's a large number of adults that marry with absolutely no interest in reproducing, and make sure that no "accidents" can occur to change that. As one friend of mine put it, "I love my partner enough that I don't need a kid to feel fulfilled; we want to focus on sharing a wonderful life together, not be distracted by unwanted third parties."
In fact, in the childfree community, it's generally known that *having children* is what damages the capacity for brilliant work in both genders. The couple's finances and energy are necessarily devoted to their offspring rather than other pursuits, and anything that isn't "child-friendly" in their lives essentially has to be dropped. That doesn't happen when childfree couples meet or marry -- so it's not marriage that derails genius, it's having children.
However, in this child-centric society, few people are willing to acknowledge that one can be happily married without kids or that becoming a parent is detrimental in any way to the rest of one's life. So what you see is articles calling parenthood "marriage" to avoid offending those who have reproduced intentionally or by accident.
My partner and I both have genius IQs, are childfree, successful in academics/career. I had one horrible boyfriend before him; being a stereotypical geek, he lacked a girlfriend despite being in his mid-30s. Rather than slowing one another down, we're constantly learning new things together or from one another. We love being able to spend an evening writing alongside one another, discussing philosophy, studying, or doing other "intellectual" things. If we had kids, *then* all of those pursuits would have to be put on the back burner; it's not whether one has a relationship, but what one does with it that counts.