I thought that was already happening on an ad hoc basis.
i used to work with a pool of women in a call center. At least 4 or 5 of them every day could be heard in the break room whining about their ‘baby daddy’ and some of them had several kids each by a different father. Pretty much none of them were getting any sort of support from the guys, and some of the guys had multiple kids by multiple women.
If you are going to spread your legs, do something actively to prevent pregnancy, if you do get pregnant by someone you are not married to, stop whining if they leave you and screw someone else. Obviously you were just a receptive hole for them to prod, and they just wanted to get off.
I have no idea how many times I got hit on by some of the same guys that these women were screwing, while they were screwing the women. If you are screwing someone, dont hit on me at a company party when you are attending with your hole on legs I am not interested.
I have three great kids who were all unplanned. I’d disagree about “no good comes of it”
It’s an unfortunate situation. He knew the risk of pregnancy but he should also know that pregnancy is such a momentous event and termination such a serious choice that a woman might change her mind. Having a conversation about it in which she says she’s not ready for children and would terminate is hardly enough to bind her or give a reasonable man an out. I wonder if they’ll consider this an oral contract {if he can prove it} I’d say there could possibly be a binding legal contract that absolves men from parental responsibilities. Good luck getting laid after bringing it up.
“hey baby, before we do it, would you mind looking this over and signing the bottom next to my signature.” “What do you mean, get the fuck out asshole?”
I understand the feeling of being trapped and the long term financial burden but it is still his child in the world after it’s birth. Avoiding your parental responsibilities can be just as harmful as accepting them. Imagine a decade or so goes by and you’re involved with a woman you truly care about. Unexpectedly she discovers that you have a child that you have avoided emotionally and financially all these years. She may well see you differently.
Let’s say you’re honest enough to tell her about this child when things get serious. It can have the same affect. Some men won’t be wondering what their child is doing out there somewhere and what kind of person they are and what they may have missed by avoiding them. For others it may always be present in their mind and hert somewhere.
It seems to me that it’s both. Because the woman is the one whose body must carry the child to term and all that that entails, it can only be her choice to either terminate or carry to term. That’s a fact a man must accept and make his own choices accordingly. If he decides he doesn’t want to participate in actual parenting and being a present in the child’s life he must at least fulfill his financial obligation.
Typical demonization of men. What the man is saying is that he doesn’t want children in the first place. What people like you are saying is is that he’s nothing but a walking wallet and has no right to complain, or for his desires or needs to be given any consideration at all. If having to “support a child” will break him financially, ruin his life, well he’s a man; he’s expendable. And I put “support a child” in quotes because such laws are really about taking money from men - even if they aren’t the father - and giving it to women - even if she doesn’t spend it on the kid.
And another reason I said that the man wouldn’t get sex is because whipping out legal forms before sex is going to be a turn off, obviously. Regardless of what they are about.
As Stoid points out, that same argument works just as well for outlawing abortion.
I think we must be living on different planets then, if you are on an Earth where something like the threat of death actually convinced men to stop having sex.
No, I’m saying that under our present system of laws no rational man would have any kind of relationship with a woman at all. Or talk to one without a camera running, for that matter. Most of our laws are so slanted against men when it comes to anything involving women that any rational man would treat any woman he met as a threat. Just as if any rational woman would treat any man she met as a threat if rape were legal. Those laws depend on the fact that men are not rational about women.
And no matter how many times you say it, not wanting a kid is not the same thing as not wanting to support one. I imagine that you’d be quite offended if I referred to a woman getting a abortion as someone who was just being irresponsible because she didn’t want to support a kid.
Very earthy and blunt. I like it. You’re right it happens all the time. It’s naive for women to think that a man saying “but baby you know I’ll be there for you” is sincere. What you’re describing is a social or cultural issue for another thread. Why are some women so naive and stupid?
The woman’s naivete does not relieve those asshole men from their parental obligations. The problem in this thread is that some are suggesting that men should be able to legally walk away from any parental obligation out of some twisted sense of fair play for men. Do you suppose such a legal out would help the situation you describe.
I get the reference but it actually doesn’t. The man knows he will never have to make that choice. This argument is also a denial of biological reality.
I know women who had abortions because the relationship wasn’t stable and they weren’t ready in their lives to be a mother. It’s perfectly understandable for the financial equation to be part of the decision making. I don’t find it offensive.
In the end it seems like useless whining to say, “but biology isn’t fair” That’s right it isn’t. No law will make it so.
Explain why this is nonsense. Your refusal to answer a very straightforward question makes you an obstinant participant in a debate that oddly enough you started.
But only as an indirect consequence of exercising control over her own body. It’s silly that this has to be pointed out to you ad nauseum. What makes it even sillier is that I’m pointing this out to another woman.
I didn’t say anyone did. But it’s not necessary to explicitly state that in order to express the sentiment. It shouldn’t matter what women’s options are. Men have always been at the whim of women when it comes to this area, even before abortion was legalized. Yet because women are able to have legal abortions now, men want to complain about an “injustice”. Never mind that this “injustice” has been around forever. It’s purely perception.
The only proposal that I think is both fair and rational is for men to waive their rights and responsibilites to any potential offspring prior to them engaging in intercourse with a woman. Relinquishing responsibilities after an unwanted pregnancy takes place is like agreeing to a bet but only if you’re assured to win.
If we allow men to “opt out” as you propose, men would lose a major incentive to practice safe sex. Even if we forget about unwanted pregnancies and wards of the state for a sec, please consider the ramifications for HIV transmission and other STDs. Men are at a much lower risk of contracting HIV from women. Because of this, men are probably much more likely to wrap up out of fear of 18 years of child support than AIDS. This will ultimately make women more vulnerable to not only unwanted pregnancy but also life-threatening diseases (as are their unwanted children…which means HIV-positive orphans for the state to take care of, yippeee!!!). I’d rather deal with the “injustice” of men not being able to control what goes on inside women’s bodies than live in a public health nightmare.
Furthermore, yall act like women would be dumb enough to tell a guy she’s pregnant, knowing full well that early notification will allow him to “opt out”. All she’d have to do is sit on that news for a few months and then be home free. A lot of women don’t know when they’re pregnant until very late in the game, anyway. This is another reason why it makes sense to have any “opt out” signatures lined up before the deed is done. But why am I wasting my time pointing this out, when such contracts–even if they were legally recognized–will likely go unused? Makes much more sense to double-up on condoms than bring notaries into the bedroom.
I guess this revelation is supposed to bring me to my knees, pleading surrender, but strangely enough I still think you’re very wrong.
Loath as I am to point out the obvious, I feel I must. A woman can choose not to have sex with a man who won’t use a condom, assuming the sex in question is consensual. Just as men know that they will be responsible for child support for 18-21 years if they get a woman pregnant, women know they are at higher risk for STDs if they have unprotected sex with men. If they choose to go ahead and have the unprotected sex anyway, that’s on them, isn’t it? Just as it’s on a man if he conceives a child when he has unprotected sex. I don’t think your argument, that oppressive child support laws are preventing a “public health nightmare” really holds water. I frankly doubt it’s true, considering how many people wind up having unplanned pregnancies and embroiled in the child support system. Its deterrent effect is far from evident.
Additionally, your argument completely ignores other STDs that men can catch, like HPV, herpes, gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, etc., if they don’t wear condoms. Avoiding pregnancy and AIDS are not the only motivations for wearing condoms.
If you remove all the stuff even remotely related to reproduction in the statement, the ruling remains intact. Why do I say this? Because the legal basis for the decision was the right of privacy, not nebulous ideas about reproductive freedom. If that wasn’t the case, then someone by now would have successfully cited Roe vs Wade to argue that it’s unconstitutional that women have to pay to feed their unwanted children. As far as I know, no one has done that. It’s ridiculous on its face.
Just as someone can not force me to give a kidney for someone else, or search my home without a warrant, I can’t be forced to incubate an embryo that I don’t want. That’s what privacy means. It doesn’t mean hardship due to parenting.
I really wonder about “ruining his poor life” and “breaking him financially”. I doubt he will be in any worse position than the mother of the child (assuming she, and not him, is the primary caregiver). :dubious: Ruining his life? Less spending money, less vacations, less luxuries, less likelihood of social upclimb, yes… But complete and total ruin? And what about the woman, who also has the kid (and is probably the primary caregiver)? Nothing about how her life will be “ruined”? I doubt, highly doubt, this is the case for most men, divorced or single. Really…
My sample? All the divorced fathers and their kids who were my classmates (and are my siblings and relatives). I think those that think child support is too high and going to the woman (in most cases) do not know how much it costs to raise a kid. If you see the kids go hungry while mom wears leather bags and fancy perfumes, you may have a point, but most of the time I see the women in low paying positions trying to juggle work and family and making ends meet and avoiding luxuries to give their kids a better chance.
But really, if you want to give men the option to back out of child support… It has to happen before sex, before the chance of conception occurs. Then it is really fair, as the woman has informed consent and has signed and agreed to what would happen. Would that get him less sex? Boohoo… remember, the woman who rejects his contract is also refusing sex with him, so she also loses out on the sex (with him, at least).
Yea, it hasn’t convinced women either.
No, the woman was responsible because she aborted before there was a kid to support. Irresponsible (and worse) is the woman who gives birth and then treats said baby as shit. She had the option (before birth) of aborting. She had/has the option (assuming the father agrees) of adopting the kid out.
Woah, let’s not go overboard here. There’s no female contraception that’s 100% effective and 100% reversible, either. The menfolk don’t need to hold out for *better *and *safer *options than we have. I’d be happy with a method which is 98% effective, 97% reversible and causes hypertension, embolisms, blood clots, cancer, mood swings, depression, suicidal ideation and intermittent spotty bleeding from the penis, just like The Pill.
Men have been wearing condoms since at least the 16th century, before AIDS was invented, to fuck prostitutes they didn’t care about impregnating. (And by 1605, they were being condemmed by the RC church as “immoral”.) Western (as opposed to Asian) condoms have always been promoted as a way to prevent disease first, and pregnancy second. Before latex, they weren’t even terribly *good *at preventing pregnancy, being riddled with holes for semen to leak through. But they did cover many sores and reduce the spread of disease.
Unplanned and unwanted aren’t exactly synonymous, are they ?
*You *might consider pregnancy a momentous event and termination a serious choice. It’s not so for everyone. Most of the girls I’m friends with wouldn’t think twice, nor do they buy the gooey, syrupy “pregnancy is such a beautiful miracle” crap.
As I said, I’m upfront about the expecting an abortion in case of accidents thing. I’m still getting laid.
So ? Seriously. I never, ever got that, no matter how common it is. Maybe it’s because I am not a calculating person, I don’t know. So knowing something about you would maybe change the relationship. SO FUCKING WHAT ? If you’re not the guy she’s looking for, tough nuggets. Your itty bitty feewings and fears are no excuse for dishonesty. You won’t get a pass from me (nor, I suspect, from her) for consciously trying to look like a guy you’re not. Or a woman you’re not.
No. If you remove all the reproductive choice arguments from the reasoning, you get the “abortion only in case of rape” law. That’s not the abortion law most modern countries have, nor should they, because it’s idiotic.
No, because pregnancy involves the woman’s body. Each person is autonomous as long as his or her own body is involved. Roe V. Wade was based on the right to privacy and bodily autonomy.
Of course they can. The question is will they. They don’t do it now, and that’s why we have an HIV epidemic in DC and other places. Obviously we can’t trust everyone to do what is best for them, or we wouldn’t have these problems in the first place. And that would be fine…if these problems remain individual problems. But they affect society. Making it easier for men to rationalize not using condoms will not suddenly make women smarter and savvier, and it’d be stupid to gamble on that happening knowing how fallible human nature is.
No, it’s on us. We can’t afford short-sightedness.
Well common sense tells me if men and women are lacksadaical now, when child support is a pain in the ass, then it’s unlikely that making it easier for men to be deadbeats will lead to any improvements. I most certainly think it will be worse. Remember that women have sex drives, too. You have guys that now refuse to wear condoms who now have no financial consequences to worry about. Sure, women can say “look buddy, no glove no love.” But many of them aren’t doing that now, even with the threat of AIDs and no guarrantees of child support hanging over their heads. I see no evidence that making women responsible for everything will overcome the cost of making men responsible for just about nothing. And let’s say women do become steadfast about making men wear condoms. As has been pointed out, they do break or slip off. What then?
HPV and herpes can still be caught by wearing condoms, and I hope most people realize that. Gonorrhea, chalmydia, and syphillis are curable and infrequently fatal. That leaves AIDs and pregnancy as the major deterrances to unprotected sex. Take pregnancy out as a concern of men and I expect AIDs rates to go up.
I don’t agree with your view, but at least you seem to be more upfront about it than others. Would you then agree that if there is a law giving men the option of opting out, a written contract should be established before sex?
You’re already upfront to the women about expecting an abortion in case of accidents, so this shouldn’t be a problem, right? Just so that it doesn’t become a “she said/he said” situation. Which is what would happen in your current situation.
And to the last part, at least you agreed to honesty and being upfront. Not all the other guys would be that way and could lie to future partners about the kids they “opted out”.
Are you attempting to argue that condom use has stayed at 16th century levels and that fear of child support is not big motivation for condom use today? I’m aware that men have historically done all kind of creative things to avoid the creation of “bastard children” and diseases. But all one has to do is have some fireside chats with folks from the free love era of the 60’s and 70’s to see that motivations for or frequency of condom use doesn’t stay static through the ages.
I agree with this. I detest these women too. While they show no sexual responsibility at all, they invariably also say that abortion is against their “morals.”
And barring rape, no woman can become a mother against her will either, as has been answered to you every time you hammered on this. Your “men are despicable horndogs, women are starry eyed does” conception of the world notwithstanding.
Which I totally get, btw, having a serious Knight In Shining Armor complex, and a bad case of misandry myself. I try not to let it cloud my judgment overly much.
@**KarlGrenze **: yup, already said so earlier. To me, it wouldn’t be a problem in principle, though I do realize that in practice it’d be decidely weird and awkward to my partners… and to me. I mean, I know they say romance is dead, but shit, lawyering a relationship ? that’s cold
