Reply to If more women are going for sperm donor kids, will men similarly turn to surrogates?

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

Reply to "If more women are going for sperm donor kids, will men similarly turn to surrogates?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote]Do you have any proof to support this statement? And I mean scientifically supported evidence regarding the "biological norm" of 300,000 years of human and pre-human behavior.[/quote]

[code]This post is as stupid as the one that preceded it. You have no evidence to support the statement that the only reason why men have children is because wives are willing to "take on the burden." What about children born to unmarried women? What about unplanned pregnancies? Stating something stupid many times does not make it correct.
[/code]

[quote][b]You can't be serious.[/b] I'm neither of those other posters, but what planet do you live on where the concept of "SAHD" or the father wanting actual responsibility for daily care of a child, is not relatively new as it relates to human history? You got any artist renderings of Ghenghis Khan in a baby sling? SOCIAL norms have changed, but whether human or animal kingdom, mothers were always responsible. The biological norm is the male wanting to spread their seed and continue their line. There are some examples of what you believe, but not many: Congrats on your husband being a seahorse.
[/quote]

Sadly, you are just another DCUM poster blowing words out of your a$$ into a post without thinking at all.

First, look at the post to which you are responding. Do you have proof to support the statement regarding "300,000 years of human and pre-human" behavior? No, you do not (even you are not OP of this post.)

For most of those 300,000 years, humans lived in small units such as tribes, where we believe multiple tribe members cared for the children. Most of the caretakers were likely women, given that the men of this time were gathering food (e.g., hunting) or fighting with other tribes. However, it is also likely that women often died giving birth, leaving some of the caretaking to the older men.

Also, the tribe's men would take their boys out with them when hunting, etc., so they cared for them during this time. Ghenghis Khan came along relatively late during those 300,000 years; however, you have no idea how many boys he trained as a part of his army.

Your comments are flippantly stupid. What does the biology of seahorses have to do with human pre-history? Not much.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics