Apparently women need men just as much as men need women…
Here is an ad I spotted today:
Are your morals for sell? Is your soul for sell? What kind of men are desperate enough to procreate children and bear absolutely no responsibility?
…is this not a modern day Abomination???
Men have deposited their seed and moved right along to the next adventure from time immemorial, so what’s the difference?
I’m told it’s their nature, evolved behavior, and thus would not be accurately described as “a modern day Abomination”.
If I have a penis (which I do), and do not respond to this ad, then does this imply that I am ‘feminine’ man?
Furthermore, if a woman (with a vagina) throws herself at me and I sexually-refuse her, then does that also mean that I am a ‘feminine’ man?
Well, no. As far as the no responsibility part there are many men who clearly like that idea. Others might consider it a favor to these people.
Men have been procreating without responsibility taking for, well, a long time. At least here, all parties know. The man does not need to take responsibility.
No it would imply that you don’t want to do what they are asking. That’s about it.
No, it means you didn’t want to.
It sound like you are confusing a request - the ad - with a moral compulsion. I am quite sure the women would accept your not wanting to donate.
If someone asks me if I want a piece of pie, it does not mean they think I am being immoral if I say know.
or a job?
or all sorts of things/activities.
I feel it’s better if the potential kids in my sack actualize and have even a shitty life rather than remain as potential kids and never experience life at all. No? Then you’re selfish.
Then why do I not fit into either of these groups as a “man”? Is there something wrong with me?
What I mean to say here is that it seems strange to me that I find no compulsion in my body/mind to “help” these two lesbians. I want to know why.
I completely-agree on the ‘need’ part.
I suppose that a “real man” is a bastard-father then, correct?
Therefore, using that logic & reasoning, I must be a “fake man” or a “feminized man” because I want to provide for my own family & children, correct?
That is logically-incorrect. They actually-will not accept my not wanting to donate, because that would defeat the purpose and intent of the ad. By the very existence of the ad, theoretically-speaking, I should at least spend my time “helping” this lesbian couple if my ultimate prerogative in life is the sexual reproduction and survival of my genes. But this is clearly-not the case for myself. Now you added Morality into the mix and I think that is a sufficient cause for concern here. My concern seems moral and artificial, not ‘natural’ in the classical sense. If I were a ‘natural’ and ‘masculine’ man, then I should be all over this ad. I kill two birds with one stone:
1) I make money.
2) I procreate children (and with no explicit responsibility).
Yet, here I am feeling sickened by this public request for (my) sperm rather than taking the opportunity for granted.
Therefore, there must be something wrong with me, correct? (keep in mind my parents are atheists and I was raised as an atheist)
So procreating children is now analogous to eating a pie?
You have a strange World View, my friend…
Actual selfishness does not constitute “potential” or hypothetical selfishness.
A male is either going to respond to this ad or not. That is where this discussion begins & ends.
Would you do it for $10 million?
I sincerely-doubt it. What could $10 mil buy me that I do not already-have or want???
Waste not ~ Want not. The Capitalistic Ideal does not convince me.
Hey…what the heck’s happening to your nose!?
LOL.
[size=85](Pay no attention, that’s just my cynicism talking…er, writing.)[/size]
Then suppose a man who was just about to jerk off runs across this ad, and he argues with my logic above that it is best if something good came of this particular load. He could either flush it down the toilet, or he could donate (and get paid) with the knowledge that a human life would grow out of it.
I’m not saying that he would be committing murder by not donating. I’m saying that out of the two options, 1. flushing the load or 2. letting it become a person parented by someone else, the latter is the better one. What are your reasoning for thinking that 1 is the better option? Because you believe in some impersonal maxim that all kids ought to be raised by their biological parents, or some such?
I would appreciate in the future if you do not imply to call me a liar. I find it very, very insulting…
Just because you may be (easily) seduced by money, Ingenium, does not presuppose that all others are.
I trade in Ideals quite openly & freely.
I never supposed the argument in contrast to masturbation; in-fact you did.
This conversation is about the nature of the request and the reasoning behind my failure to accept the request from any possible perspective.
I am surprised nobody is willing to converse with me about the nature of this scenario, oh well…
Oh, get over yourself. 
The point is that you don’t know what you’d do. No one does.
Well, pardon me for digressing, but I don’t see how your OP narrowed down the topic of conversation to just about the nature of the request. I took it from this part
…that it is the nature of the men answering the ad that is the subject of the topic, and so I offered a possible defense of a man answering the ad. In my mind, it works.
So, you want to talk about the nature of the request. Do you think it’s immoral of the lesbian couple to ask for a sperm donation? Saying that it’s an abomination isn’t an argument.
What is that supposed to mean? Are you still implying that I am a liar???
It seems that way; you insist on inspiring credible doubt into my testimony since reason cannot suffice your argument.
You are presume to know me and my nature. I invite you to dispel your self-delusions and miss-perceptions of how you believe the world operates…
What have you brought into this thread except a capitulation upon the moral premises. Rather than accept that premise as-is, you shift the whole weight of the potential argument onto a (fantastical) buyout scenario of moral beliefs, which is quite contrived and shallow if you want to know my honest opinion about it. But that still does not change the notion presented in this thread, nor does it attempt to explain or describe any human interaction between the players presented. Who cares for the price these lesbians asked for? Does it truly-matter if they ask for $10.00, $1000.00 or $10 mil dollars? Even if I do buyout at a price, then what does that mean except to necessarily-state this whole thread is based on 1) moral judgment, and 2) moral integrity.
Are you a lesbian Ingenium? Do you find this thread personally-applicable to your own case of having to buy sperm to become pregnant?
How does that make you feel? Or is this subject-matter too personal for your sensitivities? I apologize to you in advance if this is the case.
What happens when I refuse the $10.00 offer or the $10 million offer?
Does the demand for my sperm, my essence as a man, go up???
That is perfectly-acceptable. I just want to know how it qualifies me “as a man” in that sense.
It seems like I must be a “feminine man” if I am unwilling to either help this lesbian couple or even get paid for doing it.
Furthermore, if I were to masturbate and skip the ad completely, then it would defeat your earlier argument completely.
It would signify an anomaly to the circumstances.
That is a good question and one that I may not be fit to answer.
It does seem immoral, to me, for lesbians to ask me for my sperm, directly or indirectly.
I actually-feel offended that this ad even exists and I read it (seriously, as in, no joke).
I did not say it was an abomination. I was asking if it is or not.
It seems that way to me. I want to know why.
It means your moral sentiments prohibited you from doing it. Your moral sentiments, if the theory of evolution is to be believed, are another means at your disposal to propagate your genes. Sometimes they’ll tell you to go for it, other times they’ll tell you to not do it. This is an instance when they tell you to not do it. Question now is whether based on your moral sentiments and this particular instance when they are used, the theory of evolution says anything about you, in moral terms. I don’t think so, firstly because the theory of evolution is not a morally normative theory, and secondly…
Just because you were given the opportunity to procreate and you didn’t take it doesn’t mean you are a failed instance of man. There are many times where I’ve had the opportunity to become a father but didn’t, and look at me. I’m awesome. Hence, via modus tollens, which I sense you are employing in an effort to disprove the theory of evolution, it becomes obvious that just because someone refuses tang every once in a while, it doesn’t mean that they are a failure, or feminine, which I take it to be just another way of saying a failure.
If you want to make the theory of evolution morally prescriptive, then the measure of a good man would not be the particular things he does in life in specific instances, but whether he somehow (anyhow) manages to further his genes. It’s the bottom line that would count, not the intentions, or the dispositions of a person. If this instance with the lesbians was the only way in which you could propagate your genes and you turned it down, then I guess it’s fair to call you, or your moral sentiments, an evolutionary failure, because you would fail to accomplish what is considered the good, procreation of your genes.
Oh, and a word about morality:
Morality, if it is to be a successful means of propagating the genes, has to be personal, meaning it has to be capable of changing depending on circumstances. When morality is mummified, i.e., when it becomes impersonal, otherwise known as “objective”, and, as a result, when ‘thou shalls’ appear not only in stone tablets but also in men’s hearts, morality becomes potentially detrimental to the survival of the species, because if one’s environment ever changed (as it often does) in such a way such that the only means of carrying forth one’s genes was to do something for which one’s moral sentiments prohibit, then the ‘thou shalls’ internalized by the man will prohibit that man from doing what is necessary for him to survive. The man’s morality, who’s original purpose was meant to help him survive and procreate, ends up killing him. In this way, and for this reason, an evolutionist could say in non-moral terms that this person and that this method that life has developed in order to survive is a failure. Nietzsche would call it nihilistic, because such ‘methods’ would displace the center of gravity from the will to power to otherwordly things (i.e., imaginary things like heaven or God.)
A hundred bucks? Where’d you find this ad?