First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Pregnant Men
1651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Mor Dhona
Offline
Posted 11/5/14

brookline wrote:

Here's another fun topic for you.

In general women will have babies regardless of their economic status and even if they are not married, even though abortions and birth control are available. this is why there is such a large population of people in the world.

Well, what if men had the babies instead of women. Considering the nature of men, would a man allow himself to get pregnant and have a baby if he was poor, unemployed, and / or unmarried?

If men had the babies instead of women, would the population of people in poverty worldwide be smaller?

To clarify the woman would inseminate the man and the man would be pregnant. the roles would be reversed.

Yeah, now as it is a man would have a lot of kids as long as all the women he goes with allow themselves to get pregnant and have all those kids. However, if the man was the one to get pregnant by a woman would he make the decision to go through the pain of pregnancy and have kids? Would he want to take on the role of mother that women do? Would a man allow himself to be a single parent, living in poverty. Or would he use birth control or abortions?

Don't play dumb guys. You know what I mean.



Tell me what you think. I REALLY want to know, especially from you guys!

Would men have fewer children?


Ah ha ha! Ehh...

Shenanigans aside, it depends. If males were always the ones who had gotten pregnant things would be no different. Why would they be? Things had always been this way.

If there was some worldwide phenomenon that caused men and women to switch reproductive roles... well there would be waaaaaaay fewer births for a few years. People are adaptable though, so while birth rates may not recover within that time frame, as it becomes more and more normal things will even out.

Natural instinct to reproduce and all that.
Posted 11/5/14
@op.

you should youtube, "male seahorses giving birth"... it's kind of funny, however really fascinating at the same time. if i recall correctly, seahorses are the only organisms on Earth where the male becomes pregnant and gives birth.

and holy sht, they birth like thousands of little seahorses... it's really scary.

__________________

personally believe if human males were the one who gave birth, a lot of children would die (if we still have the same mentality as we do now... lol)

I work in a hospital, and what i've observed is that when the mothers stay with the child over night, they usually bring a luggage. but if it's the dads, they usually just bring themselves and nothing else... sometimes they don't even bring money for the train ticket.

No single fcks to give in the world. that's the male mentality.
6981 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / The Bottom of the...
Offline
Posted 11/5/14
This site just keeps getting weirder every day
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 11/5/14 , edited 11/5/14
I wouldn't agree to that unless I at least get the increased tolerance to pain that women have.
1029 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Fort Myers, FL
Offline
Posted 11/5/14 , edited 11/5/14
Yeah, It's an unfinished product called sperm!
955 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / ᴀᴍɪᴅsᴛ ʙᴀᴛᴛʟᴇ
Offline
Posted 11/5/14
This makes as much sense as pregnant children.
955 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / ᴀᴍɪᴅsᴛ ʙᴀᴛᴛʟᴇ
Offline
Posted 11/5/14

brookline wrote:

Here's another fun topic for you.

In general women will have babies regardless of their economic status and even if they are not married, even though abortions and birth control are available. this is why there is such a large population of people in the world.

Well, what if men had the babies instead of women. Considering the nature of men, would a man allow himself to get pregnant and have a baby if he was poor, unemployed, and / or unmarried?

If men had the babies instead of women, would the population of people in poverty worldwide be smaller?

To clarify the woman would inseminate the man and the man would be pregnant. the roles would be reversed.

Yeah, now as it is a man would have a lot of kids as long as all the women he goes with allow themselves to get pregnant and have all those kids. However, if the man was the one to get pregnant by a woman would he make the decision to go through the pain of pregnancy and have kids? Would he want to take on the role of mother that women do? Would a man allow himself to be a single parent, living in poverty. Or would he use birth control or abortions?

Don't play dumb guys. You know what I mean.



Tell me what you think. I REALLY want to know, especially from you guys!

Would men have fewer children?


The real question is would society allow infants to feed from the snake rather than the teet.

11320 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 11/5/14
Where would the baby come out from? o.0. I think it'd remain the same, but my penis is disturbed by the though.
Posted 11/5/14
I am having horrible flashbacks to male-preg fanfics.

Why. Why.
mrya21 
4387 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Ohio
Offline
Posted 11/5/14
This begs the question of if men can have babies, are they really men anymore?
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 11/5/14 , edited 11/5/14

brookline wrote:

Here's another fun topic for you.

In general women will have babies regardless of their economic status and even if they are not married, even though abortions and birth control are available. this is why there is such a large population of people in the world.

Well, what if men had the babies instead of women. Considering the nature of men, would a man allow himself to get pregnant and have a baby if he was poor, unemployed, and / or unmarried?

If men had the babies instead of women, would the population of people in poverty worldwide be smaller?

To clarify the woman would inseminate the man and the man would be pregnant. the roles would be reversed.

Yeah, now as it is a man would have a lot of kids as long as all the women he goes with allow themselves to get pregnant and have all those kids. However, if the man was the one to get pregnant by a woman would he make the decision to go through the pain of pregnancy and have kids? Would he want to take on the role of mother that women do? Would a man allow himself to be a single parent, living in poverty. Or would he use birth control or abortions?

Don't play dumb guys. You know what I mean.



Tell me what you think. I REALLY want to know, especially from you guys!

Would men have fewer children?


What I think? Oh, jeez, here I go.

I'm not sure I understand the implied distinction between man and woman if the roles of insemination were reversed. If it were possible to inseminate in reverse, things would be different? I don't think men and women are better or worse decision-makers than each other. Is this a question of "would men generally be more obliged than they currently are to have safe and consentual sex if they had to worry about pregnancy?" And the answer is yes. Would they be better at it than men and women both are today? I doubt it.

Personally, I would not have "fewer children," but my attitudes never quite fit the model. I am independent and I have a lovely family. I do not fear the financial, physical, or mental challenges of parenthood, but I will not ask anyone to take those on without full commitment to them.

I think a family with 2 children makes sense, you are replacing the population you will remove when you shuffle off. This is what I hope for some day.

In high school I worked at a daycare, and I can say taking care of 12 preschoolers at once is maybe the most fun you can have while being blackout stressed.

Plus, I could raise them in my family tradition to be a little militia of obnoxious do-gooders with a take-no-crap attitude.

But as it stands, I have to not only find a woman that I appreciate enough to impregnate, but she has to appreciate me enough to be impregnated, and she has to agree with a parenting style if I'm going to share or retain custody of my progeny.

I guess in the end, I, personally, would definitely have more children than I do now if it were possible for me to become pregnant.
6674 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / You don't need to...
Offline
Posted 11/5/14
Would guys really be guys then if they got pregnant? It depends on how much the male gender would change if this one simple role was reversed. The human body is complicated man. But from experience, women usually want babies more than guys. But then again, that might be because they enjoy being pregnant. So if the roles switched, the feelings probably would too, just by my simple opinionated hypothesis.
2333 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Manhattan
Offline
Posted 11/5/14
If the gender roles switched, but our instincts and other psychological and hormonal differences did not, then there would be fewer births in the world and a slower population growth rate. Men are by and far the primary rape groups for one thing, so women having control over that would mean less rape assuming the above. Another is that men are less willing and obsessed with having a child on average compared to women, so the main "decision maker" as to whether or not a couple will have a child will sway towards a "no" much more often (by decision maker,I refer to the fact that in modern society, a guy wanting a child can't get one if the wife is neutral or negative towards the matter, whereas a women who wants a child can get a neutral guy to accept). Men are also more open to abortion on average, so abortion rates will increase and (obviously) this will negatively (or positively depending on your view of demographic growth) impact the global population increase rate.

On the other hand, not much (if anything) would change if the female side became affiliated with male psychology, hormones and instincts and the men affiliated with female things. The genders would switch completely, making females into males and males into females. Nothing would "change", at least not in graphs.
2462 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Minnesota, USA
Offline
Posted 11/5/14
For a man to get pregnant [let's put aside the anatomical disparities] his body would also go through tons of termoil hormonaly just like a female. Females are more hormonaly driven [hence emotional]. So if men had the ability to have babies I don't think anything would change as they would still be hormonaly/emotionaly driven to have more and more even if it makes no logical sense in their current financial/socio position.
14934 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / San Francisco
Offline
Posted 11/5/14 , edited 11/6/14
Most men I know are babies when they get sick. Imagining nine months of that is scary.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.