It's the Holiday Season

And thankfully, it's almost over. Just a few more hours now of Actual Christmastime. Then the post-holiday cool down. Not too much longer though....

I'm quite ambivalent about Christmas, actually. On the one hand, I shouldn't even being celebrating it. But, you know, I'm still tied to family and must go along with them. Plus, Christmas has become more of a "culture" holiday than a religious one. As far as actually enjoying it, it depends who shows up. My brothers, their spouses, and their dogs? Yes! Excellent! My sister, her husband, and their young children? Not so much.

Let's review:

On Christmas eve the whole extended family got together. Lots of people in one small house, three-quarters of whom dislike? No thanks. Yet there I sat, hours upon hours. I suppose if I enjoyed their chit chat, I might have not been bored out of my mind. As it was, the only break in the monotony was the opening of presents. Not to sound ungrateful, but it was really a waste on all sides. I told people that if they wanted to give me something, let it be money because that's all I need. I don't need (or want, for that matter) socks. Or lotion. Or pajama bottoms that are three inches too long, etc. However, I desperately need a college education, which You could help pay for. But why bother contributing to something that matters, amirite?

Speaking of ridiculously high university costs, my brother-in-law (whom you may remember from a previous post of mine about childfree-ness) tried to convince me to apply for Stanford because if I do well enough, it would be free. All right, let's have a look. What do I want in a college...? Small student body; undergraduates only; neuroscience Bachelors degree; laid-back, yet studious, atmosphere. Okay. The college I'm interested in: check, check, check, and check. Stanford: oh-for-four.

The tricky thing is try to explain just what it is about my preferred institution that makes it so appealing to me. There is no one trait about it, or even a list of traits, that made me decided This Is the One. It just seems to fit me nicely, and the whole attitude there feels right. (Hopefully this is Ne speaking and not, say, Fi.) This feeling is not easy to explain, especially on-the-spot, aloud, and to critical ears. Not being able to properly articulate my connection to this university left me with no argument when BIL took it upon himself to find me a college that met my concrete "checks" and provided generous aid.

Even if I really do need to find a cheaper college, I can't just dump my best find on a whim! I'm sure there are other colleges out there that would have this same feeling for me, but it's kind of like falling in love. For monogamists, you can date all you want, and it's all fun and good. But then you fall in love with someone. You start taking things seriously, and you make the relationship exclusive. Maybe there's more people out there that you could also love, but you don't just keep looking even when you've found a good match!

The analogy isn't perfect, obviously. I do still need back-up colleges to which to apply. The truth of the matter, though, is that I am pretty much set on this one, and I'll work out the cost later. They have financial aid. It's not like BIL's finds are the only places that help you out.


Besides analyzing colleges, I spent Christmas day trying to be sociable and nice. I don't think it worked out very well. I just can't handle people for hours at a time. Whenever I tried to escape into my bedroom the smaller of the two children would follow soon after and start banging on my door. Of course, the parents plainly ignored this. Time "with family" was time spent listening to the sproglings fight, whine, cry, and generally be unpleasant and loud. Even when they're not actually screaming, they are loud. Their voices are loud. Their footsteps are loud. Their toys are loud. Their very presence is loud. I'd get specific about their behavior, but I really don't think I'm ready to relive all those moments... :shudder:. Let's just say, I'm glad they left early.

Of course the holidays weren't all bad. I indulged in sweets and got Half Blood Prince on DVD. The college debate rekindled my love for my preferred institution. I guess even having sprog here just served to remind me why I will never make children a part of my life. Nevertheless, I'm glad it's over now. Once a year might be too often.

Religion vs Spirituality

I tend to go through cycles of reconsidering my beliefs. One day it'll be my sexuality, then gender, personality type, future goals, etc. Today I began revisiting religions.

I know what I believe, for the most part. I do not believe there is a conscious being that is God, but I admit I could be wrong. I think all living things--people, animals, nature--are all connected in an intrinsic way. I think the same sort of spiritual "energy" is in everything. I think an overarching Truth exists, but that no being can ever actually know it. (And if they did know it, they wouldn't realize it.) I don't think dead people (or animals, etc.) retain any consciousness; rather, I believe their energy melds back into the rest of the universe.

My beliefs are all based on faith; I have no proof. I cannot be expected to have proof. Spirituality is the realm of Fi, I go with what makes sense to me. Perhaps my beliefs sound crazy to someone else, but I might find their views just as strange. Spirituality is personal and subjective. No one's beliefs are right or wrong, as long as they fit the individual person.

That said, you can imagine my opinion of religion. Organized religion is the corruption of spirituality. It takes what should be an intensely personal search and turns it into This Is What We Believe. Religions don't offer people the chance to come to their own conclusions, they tell them what's "right." Some are better than others about this, but essentially all do it.

It pains me to see children being indoctrinated into religions. How will they ever develop spiritually if you hand them "answers" their whole life. "What is a god, anyway?" "Well here, Sally, just read this book, it'll tell you!" And so on.

Nevertheless, I have been searching around for a religion that fits me. I strongly identify with Pantheism, except most of it seems quite... sterile. They have ripped all the spirituality from it in an effort to be perfectly Atheist, but in doing so, they have lost appeal of all-is-god. Unitarian Universalism goes too far the other way. It is infused with paranormal and a jumble of other things. It does not seem to have a set of beliefs, but rather share a quest. This is admirable, but ultimately pointless (for me).

I have looked into a couple Eastern nature-centered religions also. They seem to be exclusive. You can't just believe this stuff, you have to go to a spiritual leader with x qualifications and read this, or else your not a Real Taoist, or whichever it may be. I guess they don't want people confused about what the religion's actually about. Still, you think they could just post it online... I guess that's too modern for religion. Hmph.

Point being that I am once again left with only descriptions: atheist, agnostic, pantheist, new age, UU. But still no unifying, all-encompassing label. Perhaps that is a good thing; I remain free to mold my beliefs as I see fit. If I one day decide that there actually is an afterlife, I can accept that change without worrying about not being a _______ anymore.

As much as I hate religion, I love spirituality. I think it is important for everyone to think about their beliefs (whatever they may be) and adjust them throughout their lives. Whether through prayer, meditation, rituals, or just reflection; everyone needs to engage their spirituality.

Probably my most spiritual experience took place just over a month ago. I was hiking through a nature preserve. The air was crisp, but not cold. I was walking over these rolling hills, everything covered in prarie grass: gold and purple and green. I felt part of it all, the plants, the sky, the sun. It was nature--and it was the most magical thing I'd ever seen.

I know my beliefs could change. In fact, I'd be surprised if they didn't. For now though, I know my views fit me. I hope everyone can break free of the dogmatic religions and find their own, personal beliefs.

Loners at Lunch

Just a few moments ago I was looking over my school schedule, for no reason beyond boredom. I was reminded that next semester, my lunch changes to a different time slot. I was "lucky" enough to find people to sit with in both of my lunches this semester (block scheduling leaves us with two), but what if I didn't know anyone with X lunch in second semester?

The answer is painfully simple: sit alone! I love being alone. I generally dislike people and find most of their chatter an annoying interruption to my thoughts. Hence, sitting by myself should have been an obvious and easy choice.

But sitting alone is neither obvious nor, indeed, easy. Society has so brainwashed us into a pro-social mindset, that even extreme introverts like myself balk at being without companions. I enjoy solitude in every other situation, yet sitting alone at lunch makes me anxious, paranoid. "Are they laughing at me? Did that girl just point to me? Did that guy just whisper something about me?" etc.

One set of my lunch mates last school year were horrible. We were basically ex-friends, just grew apart. I hated them and their mindless gossip, and they probably didn't love me either. Yet I still sat with them. Why didn't I just go off by myself? I could've sat at a different table and read or done homework when I finished eating. I could've stayed there for the whole lunch period if I wanted (not that we get very long). But instead I sat with Them, every.single.day. Why? Because you couldn't sit alone! You just couldn't!

There is no logical reason not to sit by yourself, unless of course you are worried about what the herd thinks of you. I, like most (if not all) loners, don't care. If anything, I'd rather they think I was some weird antisocial nerd than a gossiping teenager like themselves. However, Society's message had penetrated my mind so deeply that I couldn't escape it. I didn't even realize it wasn't MY thought, at first.

I am sick of the stigmas attached to sitting alone: I must not have friends, I must be unhappy, No one must like me, etc. If people feel scorn or pity for someone sitting alone, it only proves how heavily they rely on Society's standards. I challenge everyone to sit by themselves, if they want. I challenge the rest to accept this.

If I find someone in my lunch second semester, someone that I genuinely like, then I'll sit with them. But I will NOT be pressured into sitting with someone whose company I don't enjoy. I will sit alone, and I will be happy and proud to do so. Perhaps a fellow loner will see me, happily eating and reading with no companions, and realize that ze too can eat by hirself. And maybe ze will start sitting alone and inspire another loner. And maybe it will spread and spread until finally, one day, sitting by yourself will be the obvious and easy choice it should be.

PE in HS

With obesity on the rise, one would think it common sense to be in support of physical education throughout high school. However, there is a lot more to this issue than first meets the eye. Looking at the big picture, one can see that PE does not belong in high schools.

Schools cannot force children to be fit. They can impress upon them the importance of exercise and make the available sports known. However, PE is not teaching anyone to be fit. Everyone knows, before high school, how to play volleyball and softball and whatever else. (In fact, my PE teacher did not even explain the rules to us, just assumed we knew them from middle school.) If someone was interested in a sport, they would have joined it. By high school, it's rather too late to pick up a competitive team sport. As such, PE is not bringing anything new to the table.

Now, one could argue that PE itself is making students exercise, but this is doubtful--if not downright false. Schools can make them play sports and "exercise," but they cannot make students put in effort. If they aren't putting in their full effort, what good is it doing? Not much at all.

Focusing on "traditional" exercise options like team sports and running only scares people away. But one can't very well go hiking in PE. Or fence. Or kayak. In this way, PE is incredibly limited and drives students away from anything that might be deemed "exercise."

The main reason PE doesn't belong in high schools, though, is that it eats up valuable space in the student's schedule. Even without sacrificing a period for PE, I am not able to fit in all the classes I find interesting. With all the other requirements, students are already severely limited in their choice of electives. PE is, to put it bluntly, a complete waste of time, and I am incredulous that schools would even consider to further restrict their students' schedules with it.

Maybe without those extra three years of "physical education" someone could take psychology. Or astronomy. Creative writing. Personal finance. Another language. But instead of actually learning (which is what schools used to be for), the student would be forced to spend 90 minutes sitting in the gym. Ze could use that time for homework, studying, or even researching a topic outside of hir assignments. No, ze has to play basketball.

Schools are for learning. High school in particular is a very important time for one's education, what with college (or careers) just a few years away. Students need to be putting their time and energies into classes relevant to their futures. People can easily find ways to exercise on their own, whether it be playing sports through a club or doing aerobics by themselves. Most people, though, will have a very hard time learning on their own. Therefore, high schools need to remember their purpose: primers for college and the work force, not fitness trainers.


Obesity is a serious problem here, I don't deny that. PE is not going fix obesity though. In the meantime, ignorance is also a serious problem, and extra academics could help. Lack of creative thought is a serious problem, and extra fine arts could help. So instead of schools putting all their time and money into an area where it won't do any good, why don't they focus on the places that could actually benefit from it?

Alone, But Not Lonely

Today I was forced to attend the funeral of someone I barely knew. I "had" to go because it was for my great aunt and godmother, never mind that I had never bonded with her. I made it through the whole speech part and most of lunch. But as my mother lagged behind, saying goodbye to everyone, I started to get antsy. Everyone was standing and moving about, people were squeezing past me and bumping into me left and right. Finally my mother took pity on me and gave me the keys, so that I could wait in the car for her.

This is one of many hundreds of examples of the daily suffering of extreme introverts: loners. An introvert is a person who prefers solitude; a loner is an introvert who actively seeks solitude out. Being a loner does not make one "disordered." Introversion, even in its extremes, is a perfectly healthy preference. However, the extraverted society that we live in would not want anyone believing that!

We are indoctrinated, from early childhood until death, that socializing is Good and solitude is Bad. "Oh, look at that poor boy, eating all by himself with no one to talk to!" the extravert says. But what the extravert doesn't know--indeed, what ze can't know--is that the boy is currently pondering the nature of reality and has no wish to replace this line of thought with glib comments about the weather.

Not only is solitude not harmful, it is much more healthy than socialization. In solitude, one can introspect and discover oneself. This invariably leads to high self-esteem and confidence. One becomes impervious to peer pressure, trends, and the like. There is a whole inner world to explore, and most extraverts don't even know it exists! I rather pity them. What an empty life they must live, not truly knowing themselves....

Now that we all agree introversion is not a disease or disorder, we must discuss loners specifically. Most introverts require some amount of socialization, even if relatively infrequent. But what about the people who don't require any? What about the people who are healthy and happy without any? What about loners?

To start, let us go through three basic types of relationships: friends, partners, and family.

FRIENDS:
It is possible for a loner to have friends, however it wouldn't be a typical relationship. Perhaps they only see each other a few times a year, or only email. Because a loner is not willing to put much of their time towards a friendship, ze is not likely to maintain more than one or two. A loner probably wouldn't bother with acquaintances because those relationships do not offer the depth of conversation that a loner requires to stay interested. So: a loner CAN have friends, but not in the conventional sense.

PARTNERS:
A loner would not typically have any sort of life partner. Loners live their own lives and wouldn't want another person tagging along all the time, even if they loved that person. Loners don't have to be aromantic or asexual or anything, but they might act as if they were. If a loner did fall for someone and started a relationship, it wouldn't be the generic "together-forever" partners for life. For example, they probably wouldn't live together. Kind of similar to the friendship styles. Of course, unless they are both loners, this sort of relationship is hard to maintain. Hence, loners are extremely unlikely to have partners.

FAMILY:
A loner desires no bonds to other people, yet ze is forced into them from before birth--bonds to hir family. This is a tricky situation that doesn't always end in peaceful understanding, as you can imagine. The loner may start off trying to keep up with family, but it inevitably becomes too much. It just takes too much time and effort to maintain these bonds, and they eventually decay. A loner shouldn't feel at all sad about this though; ze does not want to be bonded to others, regardless of genetic similarity. (If a loner considers certain family members "friends" too, they might better fall under that category--infrequent communication, etc.)


Loners have oddly contrasting places in the world of fiction. They are the school shooters, dangerous, cold. Yet they are also the quirky, bright, if "overly private," catches in romantic comedies. The first is obviously not true. The second starts off good, but ends in horror, with the "loner" suddenly coming out of hir shell and sharing hir life with the main character. So if fiction doesn't have good examples, what are loners really like?

Loners, living outside the trends of the mainstream, often hold strange beliefs. Also, spending most of their time away from people, loners may develop strange mannerisms. This can come across as being quirky, different, weird, etc. Loners are inherently hard to get to know, making them mysterious to some. Because loners keep to themselves, extraverts may come to the conclusion they're shy or (my favorite) "quiet." When loners reject attempts at small talk, they often come across as cold, condescending, and aloof.

These are all just society's views on loners. Each and every loner is different. Some are guided by pure logic, others by personal values. Some like working with details, others notice overarching patterns. Some are very orderly, others are spontaneous. All they have in common is their solitude, and the understanding of themselves that that solitude gives them.

Here is when the extravert speaks up: "But socializing is necessary for personal growth!" Ha! Excuse me for not seeing how senseless talking makes me a complete person. Maybe that's just me. Even if it does give you some sort of personal growth, is it in the direction I want? I would rather learn, explore, and discover on my own, than get "social skills" through shallow conversations with people I barely know.

Before you come along claiming that all humans are social beings so I must be wrong! consider that I have introspected for many years before coming to my present stance. I have drawn on my own experiences and feelings, as well as those of fellow loners. I know myself, and I know what I want and need. I am not unhappy or unhealthy. I am a loner.

Homesick...? How about "Sick of Home"

You're shocked that I've made two posts this month, aren't you?
---
My first choice college seems like a wonderful place. Rigorous academics, interested profs, small-yet-diverse student body...all surrounded by a quaint town with beautiful weather.... It also happens to be completely across the country.

This doesn't particularly bother me, but my mother is horrified by the very idea of it. Despite the fact that I could call and write to her whenever and see her twice a year, she seems to think I'll be homesick. In fact, she is now actively pressuring me to pick a college near home, but there is only one college in a 1000-mile radius that I'd even consider attending. And it is nowhere near as awesome as my first choice.

I just don't understand her point. I mean, I'm not going to be around here the whole rest of my life. What's the difference if I get out before college or after? I get that it's a mom thing, wanting to keep her baby as close to her as possible for as long as possible, but really it's just annoying.

I'm not particularly close to my family (or anyone else round here), so I truly don't think I will even be homesick. I guess I might miss some aspects of home, but nothing strong enough to turn me away from that beautiful establishment of post-secondary education. It's a little frustrating that my own mother can't even see how detached I am from everything here.

I think when I told her how I wanted to travel, she didn't really get it. She thinks I'm going to settle down in the city, get married, have 2 kids, and make occasional trips to Mexico. No thanks. When I say I want to travel, I mean I really want to explore the world. Backpacking through Europe will be the first adventure, and who knows what after that. Maybe I'll live in the city here, maybe some village in Switzerland. I just don't know yet. Maybe I'll find a life partner, but more likely I'll go it alone. And I just won't be having kids--no maybe's for that one.

The point of all that is I am going to be away from home. Whether I miss this place or not, I'm not going to stay here. So why keep putting it off? I need to see the world, and college will be the first step towards it.

The Inclusive Community

After browsing through various forums and blogs dedicated to asexuality, I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the community.

I feel that it is far too broad. Inclusiveness is great, but too much and the whole group loses its meaning. For example, demisexuals. Just because you're not AS sexual as you think other people are, doesn't make you part of the ace community. It boggles my mind that some people claim to be asexual and then say how they actually do desire and enjoy partnered sex. Well, which is it?

The real issue here is the media. The media's got everyone thinking how they need to always want sex! You don't want sex right this second? Sure you do, you're just repressing it! This attitude leaves the "average sexual" (as opposed to hyper-sexual) with three options: (1)pretend ze does in fact want sex all the time, (2)actively speak out about hir difference, or (3)realize that ze is actually normal.

Unfortunately, fewer and fewer people are choosing Option 3. And the more people choose Option 1, the more other people feel alienated and choose Option 2. Now, I'm not saying there is no "demisexual" category between asexuality and average sexuals. I just think it's overused, misused.

Let's look at two cases:

Case A: "Joanna"
Joanna had never before wanted sex or thought of someone as sexy, and she began identifying as asexual. Several years later, she began dating someone. As she got to know this person, she became increasingly attracted to hir. They had sex, and Joanna enjoyed it. Eventually, they broke up, and Joanna realized that she only experiences sexual attraction to people she is already "emotionally" attracted to.

Case B: "Sarah"
Sarah always hears her friends talking about how hot people are. Sarah is only attracted to a specific type of person. She started identifying as a demisexual because she doesn't seem to experience sexual attraction as much as her friends. She had gone out with several people and had enjoyed the sexual relationships with them; some of them she didn't even feel emotionally connected with. She realized she desires sex, but continues to identify as demi because she feels her desires are less than others'.

Hopefully you can see where this is going, but just in case: Joanna is demisexual because on occasion she experiences sexual attraction to people she is already emotionally attracted to. Sarah is a normal sexual, who abuses the demisexual ID to deal with the peer pressure to always want sex. Do you see the difference? Demisexual does not mean "picky." It means you are only attracted to the inner beauty of your partner.

Everyone in the ace community is so worried about being inclusive, we are letting people blatantly abuse the labels we came up with. (And I say "we" to avoid grammatical confusion. I myself did not come up with the things.) As an aromantic asexual, I feel my group being stuffed away into a little corner, to make room for aces and demis with more normal-looking relationships.

Aromanticism, which was once the assumed secondary orientation of all aces, is on its way to being swept under the rug. In an effort to make asexuals seem "normal" to the general public, the demis and even the romantics are going to become center stage. "See, we have relationships too! We have sex too! We want to have sex! We're just like you!"

But we aren't. Asexuals are fundamentally different than sexuals--that's why the label was created, to express our difference. It is wonderful that so much diversity can be contained in one label, but we must be careful with it. We must present all faces, or else break up into separate groups.

And speaking of breaking into separate groups...
A Life's second episode talked about how AVEN has too much "hold" over the whole community, and I think this is a very accurate observation. I seem to be the only asexual who hasn't even joined the forums, let alone post regularly. We, as a community, need to branch out and create subdivisions. Keep AVEN as the overarching Ace HQ, but make new homes for demis, straight-aces, gay-aces, aromantics, bi-aces, and any others.

Without new branches, people will eventually get fed up and leave the asexual community completely. And then I won't be the only one bitching about too much inclusiveness.

Veg*nism and Health

In October 2007, I watched the video Meet Your Meat. It showed the most horrific images from slaughter houses. I read countless articles on veganism and decided to become one. A month later I was a full-on vegan.

Well, almost full-on. I would cheat occasionally, sneaking Hostess cupcakes or coffee cake. There's nothing wrong with cheating because I'm still eating less animal products than I would otherwise, I told myself. And anyways, this food was already bought. Eating it or throwing it out makes little difference.

There was pressure from all sides to quit veganism altogether. My mother constantly complaining how much the food cost, the rest of my family making snide remarks about my diet, my friends getting in heated debates with me about the ethics of using animal products, people making bets about how long I'd last. I continued being a cheating vegan, more determined than ever to prove them all wrong.

I ate a lot of processed foods. Mock meats, pre-made burritos, Oreos, etc. I was also consuming a lot of soy. Silk, mock meats, Oreos, and probably a bunch of other foods I'm not even aware of.

Obviously processed foods are bad. But "healthy" processed foods can't be bad, right? Soy may mess with your thyroid, but I'm not eating that much of it, am I? And so on.

After a while, veganism was no longer a moral crusade. It was a habit. It was something I did because one day I had thought it'd be a good idea. I would sometimes go back and read the arguments for veganism, but somehow they didn't seem all that convincing. I also started reading arguments against veganism.

The thing that finally made me switch back to vegetarian, though, was a blog post about health. It was not healthy to abstain from all animal products, especially not the way I was doing it. Don't get me wrong veganism can be healthy. But it takes so much planning and calculating and supplementing that it just isn't practical.

A perfect example of this situation is bread. There are a million different kinds of bread. The healthy whole-grain ones usually contain milk/whey and honey. The vegan ones are filled with chemicals and soy. This situation is typical of many, many foods.

I also found out that some of the ethically questionable practices involving farm animals were simply not true, and many others were exaggerated. The arguments for veganism appeal to emotion and are generally not logical.

I still think harming animals for pleasure is wrong, which is why I still don't eat meat and gelatin or wear suede and leather. However, I must put my health before the animals'. I cannot be blinded by emotion; I must look at the situation rationally. When I do this it is obvious that veganism is not the answer.

Po(st)mo(dern)sexuals

For those of you who are reluctant to visit wikipedia, a pomosexual is a person who does not believe in using labels to define orientation.

This is dripping with irony; they are labeling themselves as "people who dislike labels." I would think if they actually disliked labels, they would just say so instead of, you know, labeling themselves.

I am not sure how I feel about the actual concept. On one hand, labels are helpful to find people compatible with us (whether for sexual or romantic relationships, or even for friendships). On the other hand, labels often become limiting, especially to people whose orientations are not clear-cut.

I guess that I support the use of labels, but only when they work. For instance, I have realized that I am an asexual. However, I am not at all certain as to my "romantic orientation." I plan to go on a case-by-case basis for romantic relationships, so I don't need a label for my preferences in that area.

Labels are useful in describing ourselves, but sometimes they can't sum up our true feelings. *shrug* If they work for you, use them; if they don't, pomosexuality it is.

Having Children

For most people, having children is a given. It's just something that happens, a regular part of life. For others, having children is a goal, an invaluable experience. But for a minority of people, procreation is just not a point of interest. It's not that we're against children themselves, we just don't feel like being the ones to raise them and care for them.

My thinking goes like this: I can raise children and make them happy, or I can discover myself and make myself happy. Maybe I'm just being selfish, but I choose 'myself.'

I never thought my feelings of "no children for me, thanks" were very radical, but apparently they are. Apparently, some people just can't wrap their heads around the idea that not everyone has the same opinions as themselves.

My brother-in-law is, unfortunately, one of these people. He is very outspoken and can get rather obnoxious, but he rarely bothers me so. In this particular incident, he was very concerned that I don't want children and would rather travel. "When you're on your deathbed," he told me earnestly, "you'll regret not having children. It doesn't matter how many stamps you have in your pass book."

There are so many things wrong with that statement, I honestly don't know where to begin.

Let's start off with the fact that he is basically claiming to understand me better than I myself do. Maybe he feels having children is the only important thing in life (I'll address that bit later), but that doesn't mean people who don't feel that way are somehow wrong or confused.

Another way to view this statement is he's saying that all people can only feel satisfied with their lives after having children. Really? All people can only feel satisfied if they have children? One of the great things about humans as a species is how diverse we are. Sure, any one person can have things in common with any other person, but to say that we all feel the same about anything is pure ignorance. Even if most people want children, it doesn't make the other people's feelings any less valid or natural.

And really what makes children such a joy? They're dependent, loud, rowdy, clingy, overemotional ... you get the idea. Why would anyone want to subject themselves to such things? They take up your time, money, and patience and give nothing in return.

I could easily turn this statement around. "When you're on your deathbed, you're going to regret not traveling and discovering yourself and the world. It doesn't matter how many children your wife popped out." Both statements put their views on a pedestal while dismissing other valid claims.

I accept that many people find happiness and, yes, satisfaction in having children. I expect other people to show the same acceptance to what makes me happy and satisfied. (Unless that is axe murdering, in which case you probably shouldn't accept it.)

So kiddies, the moral of the story is there is more than one way to achieve happiness. What works for one person, doesn't always work for everyone else. And there is nothing wrong with that.