Thunder_Gooch

Sorry Sloppy, I don't follow your analogy. If she disclosed up front she never wanted children they never would have been married and the problem would have been averted. I see absolutely nothing dishonest about omitting your sterility status if you've made it clear to your partner that you do not want children. Your analogy does not hold, and in such an instance it is not basing a relationship on a false premise. I still advise anyone seeking a vasectomy to keep it to themselves or don't have it done in the first place. Unless of course you or your partner have already had all the kids you want. Sperm banking might be a good idea in case you decide you want kids later on. Most young and healthy women are going to want children, telling such a woman "hey I am sterile" is like saying "yeah, my penis and testicles are fused into some monstrous mutated vestigial appendage" I think a better option is to be blunt and upfront about not wanting children.

Suddenly I remember why I don't post here much anymore. I disagree with virtually everyone on every topic. I disagree sloppy. If a woman is content to be in a relationship with a man who has repeatedly explained he never wants children, but dumps him as soon as she discovers he's sterile that means she was planning on getting pregnant irregardless of his wishes. Yet if the man chooses to withhold the fact he is sterile to prevent such problems he is selfish, Malarkey! All that's ethically required imho is that you make your wishes for not having children firmly known, you are not required to tell a woman you can't have children. Also note I am giving the advice to keep your sterility a secret because I made the mistake of telling my girlfriend(s) and it instantly ended the relationship as a result. If a woman wants a child so bad they shouldn't date men who don't want children, and intend to stick them with children they never wanted to begin with. just my $0.02

Selfish in what sense? It's my body, I can modify it in any manner I see fit. If I don't want children having a vasectomy is my prerogative. I think stating that; "I do not ever want children" is ample honesty, I am under no obligation to discus my fertility or lack thereof with a potential mate. Which is more selfish? A man who hides the fact of his sterility, claiming only he never wants children, or the woman who goes off her birth-control intentionally to become pregnant, forcing a man into parenthood against his wishes. IMHO it's called due diligence not selfishness.

Sloppy, I was just giving some advice based on my experiences. If you are getting a vasectomy and want to keep your relationship don't let your partner know your sterile, that's pretty honest advice irregardless of ethics. My ex was aware of the vasectomy and left before I was even able to try it out once. My next girlfriend the relationship ended a day after she found out I was sterile. My advice is be prepared to keep your mouth shut about it if you have one, if you have ethical issues with that DON'T HAVE ONE. Perhaps you can find a relationship with a woman who already has lots of children, and honestly wants no more, in which case you might be able to be open about it. As to knee jerk reactions there really wasn't much alternative as she refused birth control, and other options. A vasectomy was something I had wanted anyway since age 18, It's nice not to be afraid of having the "guess what, we're pregnant" card pulled on you. Even though it turned out to be a bad investment, it's nice I don't have to lose sleep ever worrying about being a father in any future scenario. Ironically after having the vasectomy I have no further plans for any relationships sexual or otherwise. I really don't cohabitate well with other people, and prefer being a hermit. As I get older I find I have less and less in common with people, I live solely for my dream of transcendence that is the reason behind almost everything I do. Maybe if I find a woman as monomaniacally focused on that same goal then we could be partners however I'm not so optimistic.

And there is nothing wrong with wanting a child, it's just not my thing.

Best decision no, but it's up there in the top 5. I absolutely do not want children. Sure there is reverse ejaculation but I don't trust that for the same reasons withdrawl is not an effective method of contraception. On a soul level, I seek to be kind and helpful to others, but I don't volunteer information where it is likely to cause problems. I don't see not volunteering information as dishonest unless that lack of information might harm another person. In this case how I have modified my body is no one else's business but mine. To me training is the most important thing in life. Normally my life is a private affair, I don't date or have relationships of any kind with people. The whole reason I dated my last girl friend was she claimed to share my dreams and goals in life, unfortunately this wasn't the case it was just about making babies.

Imho there is never a good time to drop the "I shoot blanks" bomb during conversation. I would think it best to keep this information to yourself unless you decide to get married. Also good luck finding a woman who will be ok with a sterile man, it really is a big deal to them. Just my $0.02

paul, I had my vasectomy because my girlfriend at the time was talking about babies non stop, her clock had started ticking and I knew it. I don't want children, so I opted to have a vasectomy and removed the possibility of having them. It's not about screwing without consequence, it's more due diligence. I think it's more of a power struggle issue, deciding when a child is conceived is usually up to the female and the male has no say in the matter whether he wants to have a child or not. When a male has a vasectomy he takes back control over when or if children are born. I don't think many women much like that shift in power in the relationship. I've been single since my last girlfriend and am I am not really looking for any sort of relationship sexual or otherwise. I'd like to find my soul mate, but I've never met a woman who shares my dreams.

The problem here is almost all women want babies, their drive to make babies is equally as strong as our drive to have sex. Finding a woman who doesn't want kids usually means shes had 2 or 3 already, or shes passed through menopause. Almost all healthy young women want children and you'd be hard pressed to find one who didn't. You become worthless and unattractive to a female who wants to reproduce if you are sterile. I'm just stating my observations on the matter. My advice is if you decide to have a vasectomy keep your mouth shut about it. They also have sperm banks and it might not be a bad idea to bank some for later in case you did decide to have children.

I think being upfront about not wanting children would be preferable to disclosing you can't have children.

Well there is a difference between telling a woman you don't want children, and you can't have children. Not being able to have children changes something about how they view you, you are not as attractive after that moment. If they have already had children and or are sterile themselves I guess it wouldn't be as big an issue, but trust me it IS an issue even if they say it isn't. My advice is to get one, but keep it to yourself no matter how much you feel it won't matter because inevitably it will. my $0.02

The girl I was dating wanted children and I did not, when she found out I was sterile she was no longer attracted to me. I've noticed this pattern with other women I've dated who wanted to have children. If the woman secretly wants to get pregnant and you can't provide the baby batter she will find someone else who can.

I've also had one, the only downside to having one that I am aware of is you become less attractive to women if they know you are sterile. I would advise you to keep your vasectomy a secret from your girlfriend/wife/lover whatever if you want to stay with them for long.

http://www.physorg.com/news193928997.html Can bacteria make you smarter? May 24, 2010 Exposure to specific bacteria in the environment, already believed to have antidepressant qualities, could increase learning behavior according to research presented today at the 110th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology in San Diego. "Mycobacterium vaccae is a natural soil bacterium which people likely ingest or breath in when they spend time in nature," says Dorothy Matthews of The Sage Colleges in Troy, New York, who conducted the research with her colleague Susan Jenks. Previous research studies on M. vaccae showed that heat-killed bacteria injected into mice stimulated growth of some neurons in the brain that resulted in increased levels of serotonin and decreased anxiety. "Since serotonin plays a role in learning we wondered if live M. vaccae could improve learning in mice," says Matthews. Matthews and Jenks fed live bacteria to mice and assessed their ability to navigate a maze compared to control mice that were not fed the bacteria. "We found that mice that were fed live M. vaccae navigated the maze twice as fast and with less demonstrated anxiety behaviors as control mice," says Matthews. In a second experiment the bacteria were removed from the diet of the experimental mice and they were retested. While the mice ran the maze slower than they did when they were ingesting the bacteria, on average they were still faster than the controls. A final test was given to the mice after three weeks' rest. While the experimental mice continued to navigate the maze faster than the controls, the results were no longer statistically significant, suggesting the effect is temporary. "This research suggests that M. vaccae may play a role in anxiety and learning in mammals," says Matthews. "It is interesting to speculate that creating learning environments in schools that include time in the outdoors where M. vaccae is present may decrease anxiety and improve the ability to learn new tasks." Provided by American Society for Microbiology

Update http://www.physorg.com/news192690076.html 'Starving yogi' astounds Indian scientists May 10, 2010 by Rajesh Joshi Prahlad Jani spent a fortnight in a hospital in Gujarat under constant surveillance from medics Indian holy man Prahlad Jani speaks at a press conference at a hospital in Ahmedbad on May 6. Jani, who says he has spent seven decades without food or water, has astounded a team of military doctors who studied him during a two-week observation period. An 83-year-old Indian holy man who says he has spent seven decades without food or water has astounded a team of military doctors who studied him during a two-week observation period. Prahlad Jani spent a fortnight in a hospital in the western India state of Gujarat under constant surveillance from a team of 30 medics equipped with cameras and closed circuit television. During the period, he neither ate nor drank and did not go to the toilet. "We still do not know how he survives," neurologist Sudhir Shah told reporters after the end of the experiment. "It is still a mystery what kind of phenomenon this is." The long-haired and bearded yogi was sealed in a hospital in the city of Ahmedabad in a study initiated by India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the state defence and military research institute. The DRDO hopes that the findings, set to be released in greater detail in several months, could help soldiers survive without food and drink, assist astronauts or even save the lives of people trapped in natural disasters. "(Jani's) only contact with any kind of fluid was during gargling and bathing periodically during the period," G. Ilavazahagan, director of India's Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences (DIPAS), said in a statement. Jani has since returned to his village near Ambaji in northern Gujarat where he will resume his routine of yoga and meditation. He says that he was blessed by a goddess at a young age, which gave him special powers. During the 15-day observation, which ended on Thursday, the doctors took scans of Jani's organs, brain, and blood vessels, as well as doing tests on his heart, lungs and memory capacity. "The reports were all in the pre-determined safety range through the observation period," Shah told reporters at a press conference last week. Other results from DNA analysis, molecular biological studies and tests on his hormones, enzymes, energy metabolism and genes will take months to come through. "If Jani does not derive energy from food and water, he must be doing that from energy sources around him, sunlight being one," said Shah. "As medical practitioners we cannot shut our eyes to possibilities, to a source of energy other than calories." © 2010 AFP

Title says it all

I wonder sometimes, maybe it is because I come from an atheist background. I spent most of my youth as a devout atheist before I had a shared experience that forced me to renounce that world view. It feels like I am still stuck in an extremely skeptical and critical mindset especially when it comes to new teachers and systems and teachings. I want to see some of hard evidence for a teacher or system's ability to get results before I invest any time or effort with it. I don't even want to waste my time listening to people who haven't accomplished anything themselves. To me this way of thinking seems perfectly rational, others I've met here disagree with me. Is being rational, skeptical, and critical of new teachers/teachings unreasonable? I can't understand why more people aren't skeptical and critical of teachers and systems. From my perspective almost all (99.999999%) of what is on the market is just garbage people made up to sell books, and none of the authors of these books or systems have ever accomplished anything notable. It seems as though there is a flood of disinformation by new age hippy authors just saturating everything. Really it makes me ill to even think about, am I the only one who feels this way?

but long term there is no goal or reason, just do it to do it basically? I'm just curious as to everyone's motivation.

ok, but what is the process, and what type of practice and why do you do it?

Hey guys/gals, I just wanted to write in saying that I have found using a large dose of melatonin, in addition to a sleep mask really helps me get into the zone for deep trance work. Not that anyone here would actually care.

When I meditate my goal is to go as deeply as possible to the point where I can no longer feel my own body, nor hear or experience any outside stimulus. Most of the time I use a massage chair I purchased because it is very comfortable but not so much so you could fall asleep in it.

I get by on about 4 hours of sleep per night as long as I meditate in deep trance for a few hours each day.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Psychiatrists-Research-Finds-iw-2733973438.html?x=0&.v=1 Psychiatrist's Research Finds You Really Can Feel a Person's Stare Paper by Dr. Colin A. Ross Explains How to Measure the Eye's Electromagnetic Energy Press Release Source: Colin A. Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma On Monday April 5, 2010, 9:23 am EDT DALLAS, TX--(Marketwire - 04/05/10) - Noted psychiatrist and author Colin A. Ross, M.D., has published experimental data that supports his scientific hypothesis that the eyes emit energy that can be captured and measured. Dr. Ross' paper, "The Electrophysiological Basis of Evil Eye Belief," is published in the current issue of Anthropology of Consciousness, a journal of the American Anthropological Association. The full paper is available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123310535/PDFSTART. Although nearly everyone has experienced the sense of being stared at only to find that a person or animal really was looking, Western science has long rejected that the human eye can emit any form of energy. Dr. Ross says his findings move "human ocular extramission," which he also refers to as an "eyebeam," from the realm of superstition to science. "We used our patent pending Electromagnetic Beam Detection System, which includes modified EEG neurofeedback equipment, to prove that the human eye emits an electromagnetic signal that can be measured scientifically," said Dr. Ross. "I hope that future experiments will determine why energy emitted from the eye is so strong and whether it can be harnessed through focused attention." A series of videos in which Dr. Ross discusses the paper can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=78E31282619EEF4D. Dr. Ross has been researching a new science and medicine focused on the human body's electromagnetic field, which he detailed in his 2009 book, Human Energy Fields (ISBN-13: 978-0-9821851-0-0). Dr. Ross previously made headlines by applying to the $1 Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge administered by the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) (www.randi.org). Although Dr. Ross can prove that his eyebeam can make a tone sound out of a computer, JREF insists that no energy can be emitted from the eyes and mocked Dr. Ross with its Pigasus Award. JREF has not responded to Dr. Ross' test protocol. Dr. Ross is the author of 140 papers in professional journals and 23 books. He has lectured widely in North America, Europe, China, New Zealand and Australia, has reviewed for many different psychiatry journals, and received a number of research grants. His writing also includes short stories, poems, aphorisms, plays and essays on a wide range of topics. For more information about Dr. Ross and the Colin A. Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma, visit www.rossinst.com. Contact: Contact: Dan Keeney, APR DPK Public Relations 214.432.7556 Email Contact