Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai General Chat

A cheaper option is just get your kids to do the dirty work, after all they owe you something.

One of the top 5 reasons I don't have kids, right there: dirty work. Blechh.

I'd put my dogs to work but the lack of opposable thumbs makes it hard for them to hold a broom.

candyrider wrote:I'd put my dogs to work but the lack of opposable thumbs makes it hard for them to hold a broom.

But dogs are pretty good at cleaning the floor after dinner.

candyrider wrote:One of the top 5 reasons I don't have kids, right there: dirty work. Blechh.

What horrible thing to say , imagine if your mother thought the same , You would never EXIST !

zubber wrote:

candyrider wrote:One of the top 5 reasons I don't have kids, right there: dirty work. Blechh.

What horrible thing to say , imagine if your mother thought the same , You would never EXIST !

Zubber, she's got the right idea. Children are vastly overrated.

But..but ..mother of beth, Such sentiments would lead to the extinction of the human race

zubber wrote:But..but ..mother of beth, Such sentiments would lead to the extinction of the human race

Mother of Beth and two others Either that Zubber, or keep them in cupboards till they're all grown up.

Kids are not for everyone. As been demostrated through many news reports the most recent one being potheads letting their infant smoke pot from a bong ! Other one I can remember naming one of thier kids Adolf in tribute to the great furher ! Kids being left locked in a car while dad watches a movie in a theather etc etc.

Plus not everyone likes kids and could certainly do without them.

zubber wrote:

candyrider wrote:One of the top 5 reasons I don't have kids, right there: dirty work. Blechh.

What horrible thing to say , imagine if your mother thought the same , You would never EXIST !

Thank God Elton John doesn't think that way.

Zubber, woman do have a choice, although you haven't gone very far out of your cave to grasp that concept. I think it is a wise woman who can make that choice, for whatever her reasons. Candy is young, pursuing her career and may also change her mind later on in life - again her choice. But for now that is her position, which is by all means her right of choice.

Too bad many women didn't have that sentiment before having a child or children, otherwise there wouldn't be so many neglected, drug addicted, unwanted children in developed countries.

You would think with all these people, in American for example, going abroad to adopt children, there were no children up for adoption in the States. I read one story where an American couple adopted a child from Russia and wanted to return the child as he had serious psychological problems and they actually feared him. The reason they took that route was because it was cheaper and easier, rather than go through the expense in the states. I guess they got what they paid for.

Bora Bora wrote:Thank God Elton John doesn't think that way.

Yes an abomination in every way

Bora Bora wrote:
Zubber, woman do have a choice, although you haven't gone very far out of your cave to grasp that concept. I think it is a wise woman who can make that choice, for whatever her reasons. Candy is young, pursuing her career and may also change her mind later on in life - again her choice. But for now that is her position, which is by all means her right of choice.

Bora, i never said they didnt have a choice, your assumptions of my outlook are based on minsterpretations of previous information I have cited. Being presumptuous to any degree is unhealthy , I was only commenting on what candy rider said, and I didnt make a direct inference to her, I said having sentiments against having children are destructive and unnatural no matter how right anyone thinks it is. People have a right to make a choice, but the choice should be based on good understanding and the ability to see beyond what is immediate. And if you still insist that women should have pets instead of children , then know that if EVE thought in the same way or the first woman thought in the same way , There would be no humans traversing the earth, this is just plain fact.

Bora Bora wrote:Too bad many women didn't have that sentiment before having a child or children, otherwise there wouldn't be so many neglected, drug addicted, unwanted children in developed countries.

These are assumptions, on your part about the plight of children in developing nations, The problem is in economics , drug addiction for certain is not one of the problems. Also if you see the number of social problems, they are present to a high degree in the so called developed nations of the world.

Bora Bora wrote:You would think with all these people, in American for example, going abroad to adopt children, there were no children up for adoption in the States. I read one story where an American couple adopted a child from Russia and wanted to return the child as he had serious psychological problems and they actually feared him. The reason they took that route was because it was cheaper and easier, rather than go through the expense in the states. I guess they got what they paid for.

I agree with you this is an odd trend happening in developed nations, with the existence of numerous alternatives to traditional pregnancy, they wouldnt have to adopt. And if they really were adamant on doing so, they should do it within their own countries.

zubber wrote:

Bora Bora wrote:Thank God Elton John doesn't think that way.

Yes an abomination in every way

Bora Bora wrote:
Zubber, woman do have a choice, although you haven't gone very far out of your cave to grasp that concept. I think it is a wise woman who can make that choice, for whatever her reasons. Candy is young, pursuing her career and may also change her mind later on in life - again her choice. But for now that is her position, which is by all means her right of choice.

Bora, i never said they didnt have a choice, your assumptions of my outlook are based on minsterpretations of previous information I have cited. Being presumptuous to any degree is unhealthy , I was only commenting on what candy rider said, and I didnt make a direct inference to her, I said having sentiments against having children are destructive and unnatural no matter how right anyone thinks it is. People have a right to make a choice, but the choice should be based on good understanding and the ability to see beyond what is immediate. And if you still insist that women should have pets instead of children , then know that if EVE thought in the same way or the first woman thought in the same way , There would be no humans traversing the earth, this is just plain fact.

Bora Bora wrote:Too bad many women didn't have that sentiment before having a child or children, otherwise there wouldn't be so many neglected, drug addicted, unwanted children in developed countries.

These are assumptions, on your part about the plight of children in developing nations, The problem is in economics , drug addiction for certain is not one of the problems. Also if you see the number of social problems, they are present to a high degree in the so called developed nations of the world.

Bora Bora wrote:You would think with all these people, in American for example, going abroad to adopt children, there were no children up for adoption in the States. I read one story where an American couple adopted a child from Russia and wanted to return the child as he had serious psychological problems and they actually feared him. The reason they took that route was because it was cheaper and easier, rather than go through the expense in the states. I guess they got what they paid for.

I agree with you this is an odd trend happening in developed nations, with the existence of numerous alternatives to traditional pregnancy, they wouldnt have to adopt. And if they really were adamant on doing so, they should do it within their own countries.

I guess you missed my sarcasm with regard to my Elton John comment.

I was referring to DEVELOPED countries, not DEVELOPING countries.

I'm not alone in "misinterpreting" your posts Zub.

Are you PRESUMING that candy lacks understanding and can't see beyond the immediate? It's very possible she is wise beyond her years. She may have her own reasons for not wanting children that some might not understand, but she certainly doesn't have to explain why she made the decision she made at this time.

What's your take on DDS, he is adament about not having children? For whatever his reasons, I applaude him. There are probably more men in developed countries who don't want children than woman. I worked with a woman who was a partner in a law firm and she wanted children, husband didn't. He "allowed" her one. God works in mysterious ways - she had twins!!!!

It is NOT unnatural not to want children. There are some women who don't have the natural mother instinct, for whatever reasons - the same way many, many men walk away from children when relationships end because they don't have father instincts. You are familiar with the term "dead beat dads?". Trust me, the number of women who don't want children desn't have a big impact on population. There are enough women out there that procreate like rabbits - because they live in a society that has them believing that's why they were put on this earth.

Bora Bora wrote:I guess you missed my sarcasm with regard to my Elton John comment.

Guilty

Bora Bora wrote:I was referring to DEVELOPED countries, not DEVELOPING countries.

Goccha

Bora Bora wrote:I'm not alone in "misinterpreting" your posts Zub.

I am not concerned with what people think, when they bring that matter up to me, I will respond in kind.

Bora Bora wrote:Are you PRESUMING that candy lacks understanding and can't see beyond the immediate? It's very possible she is wise beyond her years. She may have her own reasons for not wanting children that some might not understand, but she certainly doesn't have to explain why she made the decision she made at this time.

Again I am stating that if more and more women have such sentiments, there would be a population crisis. whatever her reasons her , I am not concerned about it even in the slightest degree.

To illustrate what I mean lets look at japan for a moment , they actually pay people to have children, whats even worse the reason sighted by japanese women to not have kids is financial and just not dealing with the associated problems one will inevitably encounter. Sure they have right to believe whatever , but look at the consequence, Here is another example , A few years back , In a survey in singapore ( i dont have a link to the source, but it might be archived somewhere) , it seems Singaporean women just DONT WANT TO HAVE KIDS , even if they are well off , they rather spend time in spa's and pamper themselves, What it their mums thought in the same way ? I know I keep coming back to the same argument , but You can see how relevant it is.

Bora Bora wrote:What's your take on DDS, he is adament about not having children?

When someone doesnt want to have kids, their genes are weeded out of existence. Again if such ideas persisted , there would be no humans on the earth.

Bora Bora wrote:It is NOT unnatural not to want children.

It IS UNNATURAL, If women were not supposed to have kids, then they wouldnt come fitted with biological apparatus with that function. The role of men is very limited in this process.

And for arguments sake if the reason for women to exist was not child birth. Then children would grow on trees. I really dont care what the arguments MODERN WOMEN HAVE , You cannot ignore anatomy and physiology. Are u aware why women's breasts are larger then mens ? Ofcourse it has other functions besides attraction.

The objective of $ex is to ensure that conception occurs , The natural desire of mating is the strongest human instinct, the objective of the act of mating is to procreate. If our reasons for existence was not to procreate, then we wouldn't have the desire for $ex , intimacy etc, Men would be satisfied with a firm handshake and a hello and walk way.

Bora Bora wrote:There are some women who don't have the natural mother instinct, for whatever reasons -

Behavior is determined by a combination of many factors both environmental and physiological. When women get pregnant there are changes in hormonal levels that will trigger the necessary instinct. Female behavior is dictated by hormones just as mens, dont believe me , watch yourself when your menstruating. Observe your own moods and your thoughts, and notice the changes in them when you are out of it. Better yet ask you hubby about your behavior

Bora Bora wrote:many men walk away from children when relationships end because they don't have father instincts. You are familiar with the term "dead beat dads?".

Yes I am aware of the dead beat buffoons, there would some psychological problems with those fathers that do this sort of a thing, the reason is based on their own family when they were kids, what they have been exposed to and so on and so froth.

Bora Bora wrote:Trust me, the number of women who don't want children desn't have a big impact on population. There are enough women out there that procreate like rabbits - because they live in a society that has them believing that's why they were put on this earth.

You are mistaken, Ms Bora , read about the crisis in japan.

Wow!
Anyways back to Elton John! According to the media, Elton and David don't know which is the father of little Zac (I think that's the name!)
It's obviously a turkey baster job. Do you think they both knocked one out and gave it a good stir?

Bethsmum wrote:Wow!
Anyways back to Elton John! According to the media, Elton and David don't know which is the father of little Zac (I think that's the name!)
It's obviously a turkey baster job. Do you think they both knocked one out and gave it a good stir?

It seems they are not interested in doing it, you can see clearly that child of theirs is going to be one messed up person

Bethsmum wrote:after all they owe you something.

Parents choose to have children (or so I like to think), not the other way around.

Bethsmum wrote:Wow!
Anyways back to Elton John! According to the media, Elton and David don't know which is the father of little Zac (I think that's the name!)
It's obviously a turkey baster job. Do you think they both knocked one out and gave it a good stir?

LOL - wicked!! Its the first time I heard that ie that they (one of them at least) is the father - I thought it was an adoption. If it was a basting job than I guess your stirred theory was probably the most amicable and neutral way of deciding who should be dad. On the other hand Elton is pot ugly so maybe they gave the poor kid something to look forward to when he grow up and went with David's.

zubber wrote:It IS UNNATURAL, If women were not supposed to have kids, then they wouldnt come fitted with biological apparatus with that function. The role of men is very limited in this process.

And for arguments sake if the reason for women to exist was not child birth. Then children would grow on trees. I really dont care what the arguments MODERN WOMEN HAVE , You cannot ignore anatomy and physiology. Are u aware why women's breasts are larger then mens ? Ofcourse it has other functions besides attraction.

The objective of $ex is to ensure that conception occurs , The natural desire of mating is the strongest human instinct, the objective of the act of mating is to procreate. If our reasons for existence was not to procreate, then we wouldn't have the desire for $ex , intimacy etc, Men would be satisfied with a firm handshake and a hello and walk way.

Behavior is determined by a combination of many factors both environmental and physiological. When women get pregnant there are changes in hormonal levels that will trigger the necessary instinct. Female behavior is dictated by hormones just as mens, dont believe me , watch yourself when your menstruating. Observe your own moods and your thoughts, and notice the changes in them when you are out of it. Better yet ask you hubby about your behavior

You're taking all the fun out of it all!

-- Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:03 pm --

Bethsmum wrote:Wow!
Anyways back to Elton John! According to the media, Elton and David don't know which is the father of little Zac (I think that's the name!)
It's obviously a turkey baster job. Do you think they both knocked one out and gave it a good stir?

Reminds me of this twin that have different farthers.

Flying Dutchman wrote:You're taking all the fun out of it all!

Oh yes thanks for bringing that up, Were the act of mating not fun, then men and women wouldnt really bother themselves with it, which would lead to extinction of the human species

Zubber:

...........some psychological problems with those fathers that do this sort of a thing, the reason is based on their own family when they were kids, what they have been exposed to and so on and so froth.

And is this something that pertains only to men? Couldn't many women who decided not to have children and who have been in the same situations, as well as "so on and so forth", and have the intelligence to decide not to have children, rather than procreate, breed, and walk??

Zubs, you and I will never agree in so many ways about women. Maybe in your next life you will be a bit more advanced with your outlook towards women. You come across like a real Neanderthal.

In the meantime, I hope you and your girlfriend are very happy............LOL

Bora Bora wrote:
Zubs, you and I will never agree in so many ways about women. Maybe in your next life you will be a bit more advanced with your outlook towards women. You come across like a real Neanderthal.

Heh Bora, You're ok in my books, love ya

JoeTGF wrote:

Bethsmum wrote:Wow!
Anyways back to Elton John! According to the media, Elton and David don't know which is the father of little Zac (I think that's the name!)
It's obviously a turkey baster job. Do you think they both knocked one out and gave it a good stir?

LOL - wicked!! Its the first time I heard that ie that they (one of them at least) is the father - I thought it was an adoption. If it was a basting job than I guess your stirred theory was probably the most amicable and neutral way of deciding who should be dad. On the other hand Elton is pot ugly so maybe they gave the poor kid something to look forward to when he grow up and went with David's.

Joe. Elton is claiming the child has his hands and David's ears! LOL Whatevea!
It's a mixed up carry on if you ask BM! Shaken not stirred?

Bethsmum wrote:Joe. Elton is claiming the child has his hands and David's ears! LOL Whatevea!
It's a mixed up carry on if you ask BM! Shaken not stirred?

Ok now i get what you mean by that shaken and stirred phrase, this is an interesting point , obviously the surrogate mother had a fertilized embryo implanted into her uterus ( but the question was whose sperm was it), only one sperm can fuse with the egg at a time, The child should technically look like only one of the fathers, their claims are most probably just feel good talk, imho.

zubber wrote:

Bethsmum wrote:Joe. Elton is claiming the child has his hands and David's ears! LOL Whatevea!
It's a mixed up carry on if you ask BM! Shaken not stirred?

Ok now i get what you mean by that shaken and stirred phrase, this is an interesting point , obviously the surrogate mother had a fertilized embryo implanted into her uterus ( but the question was whose sperm was it), only one sperm can fuse with the egg at a time, The child should technically look like only one of the fathers, their claims are most probably just feel good talk, imho.

Zubber - I think we deduced the biology part already.

JoeTGF wrote:Zubber - I think we deduced the biology part already.

Oh I was actually commenting on that phrase, i didnt understand it at first

JoeTGF wrote:

zubber wrote:

Bethsmum wrote:Joe. Elton is claiming the child has his hands and David's ears! LOL Whatevea!
It's a mixed up carry on if you ask BM! Shaken not stirred?

Ok now i get what you mean by that shaken and stirred phrase, this is an interesting point , obviously the surrogate mother had a fertilized embryo implanted into her uterus ( but the question was whose sperm was it), only one sperm can fuse with the egg at a time, The child should technically look like only one of the fathers, their claims are most probably just feel good talk, imho.

Zubber - I think we deduced the biology part already.

Yes, I was focusing on the fun part.

Zubber, you are too much! This thread has gone way off topic. Can a MODERATOR please split it and start a new thread under another topic title. Thanks.

-- Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:59 am --

Thanks Sage!

Zubber, every person has a right to decide if they want to be single, married and have children. It is not an obligation for everyone to marry someone from the opposite se.x and procreate (a lot!)

What you said about Singapore is ridiculous. In the 70's there was a govt program to limit families to 2 children, so no wonder smaller families are more common. A main reason many choose not to have or to have only one child here is because it costs a lot of money! The Chinese Singaporeans at least are constantly putting their kids through study programs and tutoring almost from when they are born. They constantly compete to get into the better schools. They expect their kids to have high academic achievement and skills in hobbies that their parents have chosen for them, like piano or badminton etc. If children have grown up with parents working long hours, then spending all their waking moments on their enhancement, they likely think it is too much work and too much money to have children or vow to limit to 1 child. The Malays and Indians have more children than the Chinese Singaporeans, but they are minority populations, so the Singapore population is indeed declining. As you can see it is utterly ridiculous to say that the birth rate is declining because the women in Singapore want to spend time at the spa!

kanelli wrote:Zubber, every person has a right to decide if they want to be single, married and have children. It is not an obligation for everyone to marry someone from the opposite se.x and procreate (a lot!)

And ? I commented amount male and female biology and why they have reproductive systems. The issue of "right" & "obligations" are both abstract ideas.

kanelli wrote:, so the Singapore population is indeed declining. As you can see it is utterly ridiculous to say that the birth rate is declining because the women in Singapore want to spend time at the spa!

Perhaps the point was misunderstood, If the chinese singaporean women continue to have the idea that bearing kids is a just a hassle then, the rate of births would decline to dangerous levels. That is all what I said.

SINGAPORE, Jan 18 (Bernama) - Singapore is worried that Singaporeans are not producing enough babies to offset the republic's declining birthrate.
.
.
Lee said that "at these low birth rates, we will rapidly age and shrink"
.
.
The minister said Singapore needed young immigrants, otherwise, its economy would slow down, like the Japanese economy.

http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsg ... ?id=557862

The problem in Japan -

Japan's population logs biggest fall since WWII
.
.
Japanese seniors enjoy increased life expectancy while many young people continue to defer starting a family because of the burden on their finances, lifestyles and careers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110101/lf ... 0101032527

Dont take my word for it.

So let us see what happens within a few decades

An actual study conducted by the Singapore Management University, Titled Materalism and Children
http://www.mysmu.edu/faculty/normanli/L ... on2010.pdf

In a nutshell , This study indicates clearly how east asian countries are have a steady decline in their population, because the women apparently are extremely materialistic, which makes them forgo child bearing, to such an extent it has become an epidemic in this region.

I reiterate again, the moment the idea that CHILD BIRTH is unnecessary becomes the norm, so will it begin the end of the human race.

The EU's baby blues (dated - 2008)

Europe's working-age population is shrinking as fertility rates decline.

Many European countries already have policies in place - some more explicitly pro-natal than others.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4768644.stm

Apparent in europe they have some incentives in place to ensure that birthrates remain at a threshold value.

Not gone through all the replies on this thread,but here are some random thoughts: again, may not be 100% accurate, but am quoting just off my head.
The world population in 1973-74 was 3 billion; in the 90's it was 5 billion, and today its 6 billion, and rising FAST!
From an evolutionary stand-point, the HUMAN species has been a spectacular success.So far. But, from this point on, it also appears as if these same humans are contributing to certain very harmful things. Global warming, scarcity of resources etc. not to mention wars that it inflicts on each other. Individual human life is becoming hard, harsh, and difficult. As some philosopher once put it, LIFE is the name of endless suffering.
So, it may not be such a bad idea if there are some people who do not wish to have children. Why bring more people into more misery? What else has this planet to offer now, with rising temperatures, falling food stocks, water running out, and land running out?
On a somewhat different note, evolution is still at work, and human intelligence is evolving. The computer is one creation of human intelligence, and the speed at which computing ability is developing, the likelihood is that intelligent beings of the future are going to be silicon-based, highly advanced computers. It is beleived that computers will be able to think better and faster than the human brain in about 50 years from now. One can only imagine what this capacity will be like in a 1000 years. That most likely will put an end to the human race.
My 2 cents in my drunken rambling!

kanelli wrote:Zubber, you are too much! This thread has gone way off topic. Can a MODERATOR please split it and start a new thread under another topic title. Thanks.

-- Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:59 am --

Thanks Sage!

Zubber, every person has a right to decide if they want to be single, married and have children. It is not an obligation for everyone to marry someone from the opposite se.x and procreate (a lot!)

What you said about Singapore is ridiculous. In the 70's there was a govt program to limit families to 2 children, so no wonder smaller families are more common. A main reason many choose not to have or to have only one child here is because it costs a lot of money! The Chinese Singaporeans at least are constantly putting their kids through study programs and tutoring almost from when they are born. They constantly compete to get into the better schools. They expect their kids to have high academic achievement and skills in hobbies that their parents have chosen for them, like piano or badminton etc. If children have grown up with parents working long hours, then spending all their waking moments on their enhancement, they likely think it is too much work and too much money to have children or vow to limit to 1 child. The Malays and Indians have more children than the Chinese Singaporeans, but they are minority populations, so the Singapore population is indeed declining. As you can see it is utterly ridiculous to say that the birth rate is declining because the women in Singapore want to spend time at the spa!

Why don't you just start a new thread.

zonker wrote:Not gone through all the replies on this thread,but here are some random thoughts: again, may not be 100% accurate, but am quoting just off my head.
The world population in 1973-74 was 3 billion; in the 90's it was 5 billion, and today its 6 billion, and rising FAST!
From an evolutionary stand-point, the HUMAN species has been a spectacular success.So far. But, from this point on, it also appears as if these same humans are contributing to certain very harmful things. Global warming, scarcity of resources etc. not to mention wars that it inflicts on each other. Individual human life is becoming hard, harsh, and difficult. As some philosopher once put it, LIFE is the name of endless suffering.
So, it may not be such a bad idea if there are some people who do not wish to have children. Why bring more people into more misery? What else has this planet to offer now, with rising temperatures, falling food stocks, water running out, and land running out?
On a somewhat different note, evolution is still at work, and human intelligence is evolving. The computer is one creation of human intelligence, and the speed at which computing ability is developing, the likelihood is that intelligent beings of the future are going to be silicon-based, highly advanced computers. It is beleived that computers will be able to think better and faster than the human brain in about 50 years from now. One can only imagine what this capacity will be like in a 1000 years. That most likely will put an end to the human race.
My 2 cents in my drunken rambling!

I'll have what he's having.