ha! I thought there really is a movement. Is there? sorry, confused now.... it wasn't fucking so ygirl
Even was a I was child free I noticed this.... just in case you think I'm talking about after.
If you give birth to a child, even if you never parent that child, you are not child free? But if you birth a child, but the child does not carry your genetic material (i.e. a surrogate) you can be CF? Why is passing on your DNA the sticking point, and not the pregnancy? What about sperm or egg donors? Can't they be child free?ETA: Having a baby and giving it up for adoption or being an egg-donor or surrogate and then claiming to "be" CF is a bit like having sexual intercourse "just one time" and then claiming to still "be" a virgin. It's just one of those things that once you do it, you can't go back. Maybe I can bend a little regarding the surrogacy if the surrogate is ONLY acting as a carrier for another couple's fertilized egg, but if the offspring is of the host's DNA, then no, the surrogate is not CF.
Being a parent is a lot more than just passing on your DNA.
But why? What is it about passing on your DNA that makes you think that person cannot be "child free"?I agree with that. And being CF is a lot more (or a lot LESS, if you prefer) than not just being a "parent". It ALSO means not passing on your DNA.
If it is about "identifying like-minded individuals", then I understand even less. If you meet someone who has exactly your view, and shares all your opinions on the subject, but 15 years ago, they had a different perspective and had a child adopted, or donated sperm, what makes them not like-minded now?The benefit of having such a restrictive definition of what it means to be CF is so that there is some criteria for identifying other like-minded individuals. I thought I said this somewhere already, but I may have edited it in while you were typing your post.
I don't think that is what is happening. Your definitions are just being questioned because they seem arbitrary - that's all.I'm a little bit amused by how much stock people seem to be placing in my opinion(s) about this, as though I'm some sort of authority figure.
The term "childfree" is distinct from the term "childless" in that the suffix '-free' indicates one's free choice to forgo procreation, while the suffix '-less' implies a lack.
But why? What is it about passing on your DNA that makes you think that person cannot be "child free"?
If it is about "identifying like-minded individuals", then I understand even less. If you meet someone who has exactly your view, and shares all your opinions on the subject, but 15 years ago, they had a different perspective and had a child adopted, or donated sperm, what makes them not like-minded now?
I don't think that is what is happening. Your definitions are just being questioned because they seem arbitrary - that's all.
I don't agree. I don't think that having genetic offspring in the world is the same thing as "having children" (as the dictionary definition you linked to defined it.) I don't see a sperm donor who isn't even aware of whether or not his genetic material has been used as a parent, and therefore he does not "have children." And I don't think many men who donate sperm do so because they desire to procreate. Nor is a man who accidentally got a woman pregnant, never saw her again, and was not aware that the baby was born, a parent.Child-free from what I have read is the desire to not procreate, period. Passing along your dna inherently means you are going to procreate, thereby excluding it from the definition.
I don't really see the point in the comparison, because virginity is a fundamentally useless concept to me. The pro-virginity movements does, as you say, accept "renewed virgins", which makes a lot more sense to me than sticking to the dictionary definition of the term "virgin" no matter what.Again, I invoke the "virginity comparison": If you had sex when you were unmarried and say, 17 years old, then you decided that sex before marriage is wrong, you're not a "born-again virgin". Once you have sex, your virginity is GONE - BYE BYE! The same goes for being CF. You can't un-ring that bell.
Questioning your arbitrary views is not the same as saying you should not have them.Is there some law of the universe that says one cannot hold arbitrary opinions about anything? If so, would you please direct me to it? A Wiki link should suffice.
I
Ygirl- question... In your oh so interesting opinion, would I not be considered child free if I didn't want a baby until I was 31? I was adimently against kids until then. For all the reasons I hear on here and elsewhere; drain on the environment, too many kids in the world, etc. Then I had this huge overwhelming desire to have the child I have. I dreamt about him. He came into my life for some reason.
I don't agree. I don't think that having genetic offspring in the world is the same thing as "having children" (as the dictionary definition you linked to defined it.) I don't see a sperm donor who isn't even aware of whether or not his genetic material has been used as a parent, and therefore he does not "have children." And I don't think many men who donate sperm do so because they desire to procreate. Nor is a man who accidentally got a woman pregnant, never saw her again, and was not aware that the baby was born, a parent.
I think people are a little too optimistic about the privacy of sperm donation, egg donation, closed adoptions, and the like. I know several people who came of age right around the time that adoption records started to become available to the kids who had been adopted, and one girl I know made her real mom's life an absolute fucking mess because the girl was manic-depressive and unwell mentally, refused to receive treatment or meds because she wanted to keep hearing the voice of God inside her head which told her to do stuff (I think she was a tad schizophrenic too but mostly she had bipolar symptoms)....and she latched onto and stalked her real mom. Her real mom had been one of those sad teens of the early 1960's forced to give up her baby because she was an unwed mom; years later she got married and had two kids with her new husband. Then her adopted daughter shows up with a huge bucket of unfulfilled emotional need, and it totally wrecked all of the people involved.
I have also heard of people finding out who their sperm donor daddy was. So I don't think any of those activities like donating sperm or eggs should be seen as being childfree at ALL because you can DEFINITELY end up with a kid on your doorstep at some point. Same with "closed' adoptions. Laws change, records end up being shared (whether legally or through bribery).....so there is no such thing as total anonymity with that stuff. Which is scary!
I don't really see the point in the comparison, because virginity is a fundamentally useless concept to me. The pro-virginity movements does, as you say, accept "renewed virgins", which makes a lot more sense to me than sticking to the dictionary definition of the term "virgin" no matter what.
My wife and I are childfree and we recently opened up our marriage... With our childfree lifestyle, it seems to make being poly extemely easy. I was wondering how many people have decided to live the childfree/poly life. We are lucky because we are friends with 2 other poly/childfree couples so we all pretty much click as a "family" unit. Anyone want to share their thoughts?
I am not out to convert anyone to my way of thinking; I just like it when I do find other people who already think the way I do. This holds true for other things besides being CF.
Again, I invoke the "virginity comparison": If you had sex when you were unmarried and say, 17 years old, then you decided that sex before marriage is wrong, you're not a "born-again virgin". Once you have sex, your virginity is GONE - BYE BYE! The same goes for being CF. You can't un-ring that bell.
If someone gave up a kid for adoption or had a kid that died or whatever and they want to call themselves CF, I can't really stop them, and if they don't tell me, then I have no way of knowing, but if I found out, I would certainly wonder why they find it necessary to identify themselves to the world as CF.
They don't have children. This means procreation in my world.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1309267#m_en_us1309267
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1309267#m_en_us1309267 said:pertaining to adults who do not have or live with children:
And the wiki page for shits and giggles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childfree
Childfree individuals do not necessarily share a unified political or economic philosophy, and most prominent childfree organizations tend to be social in nature.
I'm assuming that's to be interpreted as "who neither have nor live with", as opposed to "do not have or do not live with"
The virginity analogy fails. Yes, it's true that with being CF and being a virgin, once you pop that cork, you can never get the genie back in the bottle...
But a person is a virgin right up until the moment they have sex. Why can't a person be child-free right up until the moment they change their mind?
People change their religions, sexual orientations, even genders. Something like an attitude towards child-rearing seems much less fixed than those.
And while you've guaranteed that you'll never conceive your own biological babies, there's always adoption, hence it's still possible for even you to change your mind, unlikely as you say that is.
I'm relieved by this line from the wiki page:
So the fact that YGirl is spoutin' off about the "real, true CF" people is just the usual hot air
Most CF people that I know hold to a philosophy that applies to the larger world beyond themselves. That philosophy being a commitment to not add any more children to the the world as there are plenty of people doing that already and there seem to be a lot more children in the world than capable adults that can care for them. Given that view, it's entirely reasonable for a person not to be considered CF if they have indeed added a child to the world even if that child was put up for adoption. Because that person did indeed have a child and added it to the world, even if they now live free of the burden of caring for that child.
For many, being CF is a world view of keeping societies sustainable, not just a narrow view of how they want to conduct their own lives without the burden of children.
(note: I do not consider caring for children to be a burden, but it seems that many people seem to view the motivations of being CF to be about children being considered a burden in life, which is why I used that term here)
That philosophy being a commitment to not add any more children to the the world as there are plenty of people doing that already and there seem to be a lot more children in the world than capable adults that can care for them. Given that view, it's entirely reasonable for a person not to be considered CF if they have indeed added a child to the world even if that child was put up for adoption. Because that person did indeed have a child and added it to the world, even if they now live free of the burden of caring for that child.
So, I'll say it once more: It is very insulting to repeatedly be told that I'll change my mind, so please stop forever. Go find someone else to "bingo". If you don't know what that means, please google "CF Bingo".