Fertile, shooting blanks or do-not-care?

[bbboyfucker]

Today I came in (literally LOL) for a spermogram test I was asked by my urologist to have, as I am reaching 40 yo and after an ultrasound test showed mild calcific sclerosis in my testicles.

I'm not quite sure I would like to pass My DNA to my descendants, due to some genetic defects that are not to easily dismissed.

Although I am planning on having children, but my thought is that one's parenthood is primarily determined by them being a parent to your children, raising them with love and being a role model to them, rather than having their children carry their DNA.

Assuming you could isolate your fertility status from any other health condition, being it the only question in mind at the moment, What are your thoughts?

Please, no judgmental, lecturing or evil comments.

[BlueSaphir]

I don’t plan to have children, but I don’t want to deal with low sexual issues. 

[rawfuckr]

Interesting question. 

Somehow I do care and I sometimes I do semen analysis including sperm morphology and count to see what's going on. Doing well in this test so far. 

Edited Friday at 06:30 PM by rawfuckr

[BlindRawFucker1]

As long as everything else is working properly, I don’t care how many, or few, little guys are swimming around.

 

I have no desire to have kids.  Adopting would be best anyway.  We don’t need any additional little humans running around.  Let’s take care of those who aren’t wanted first.

[verslut]

Some women are into conceiving via NF (no strings attached). I only recommend it for men who think they have good genes. I'd only conceive a kid I plan to raise.

[Rillion]

There needs to be an option for "I only fuck guys so I have never even thought about this issue"

[hntnhole]

On 9/20/2024 at 12:39 PM, bbboyfucker said:

raising them with love and being a role model to them, rather than having their children carry their DN

I agree with the above.  

The way I see it, that's the entire point of raising children - one's own biologically, or adopted. 

The sense of wanting to instill worthy values into a next generation is at least as valuable as an innate urge to procreate (which implies nothing but the urge to ensure the survival of the individual species).  All species share that basic urge, from insects to plants to more "advanced" species - particularly human.    

It's not inconceivable that once a certain species reaches dominance over every other critter - human or otherwise - that the procreative urge can wane.  It's just as valid a premise to want to take care of those already here - alive and needing all the instinctual things like - oh - food, shelter, learning right from wrong, some shred of dignity - rather than increase the already-swollen numbers of a particular species.   

There's one particular species that's become really good at "culling the herd" every century or so, maybe because they were unable/unwilling to consider alternative choices.  I wonder if we'll ever get to the point that "us" overtakes "me" in our group consciousness.

[bbboyfucker]

35 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

"I wonder if we'll ever get to the point that "us" overtakes "me" in our group consciousness."

Me too. 

I hope this can be achieved, though it does seem like an apocalyptic scenario. 

[hntnhole]

To the OP though, I don't care one little bit whether I might (or might not) be able to procreate.  For me, it's totally a non-issue.  

[BlueSaphir]

Well I think OP should pass his DNA, he got a beautiful looking cock. 😅🙊

Edited 11 hours ago by BlueSaphir