Misandric TV
Take a look at this clip from youtube (Hat tip: Richard's Midlife Crisis) from a segment on the Dr. Phil Show and read the comments -- many are spot on. The video clip shows the willingness of this misandric psychologist to pander to his female audience without any regard for men's Constitutional rights or equality of reproductive choice. Unbelievably, Dr. Phil takes the position that a man should be forced to be a father, even when his girlfriend lies to him about her medical condition, birth control and the level of responsibility she is willing to take before they have sex. I love the way Dr. Phil never talks negatively about women who lie to their sexual partners. If a man lied to a woman in a similar fashion, you'd better believe that he would be ridiculed and held up as a loser.
Yes, these daytime talk shows like Dr. Phil are silly and not worth watching for the most part, but that does not mean that they are harmless. All of us who care about equal justice in the courts for both women and men would do well to pay attention to the cultural messages that shows like this send out, that the men and their lawyers who speak up about reproductive choice are wimps and good-for-nothings who get their jollies by berating an innocent woman who had no idea that she could get pregnant. Men have few choices in today's arena of reproductive rights and must be fathers and pay the price for a good portion of their lives. Funny, this used to be the case for women in the "dark ages" and now it is seen as wrong -- for women. It is just as wrong for men.
Men must stand up for each other and demand justice by using alternative media (like Youtube) to get the word out that this type of sexist "justice" is unfair and will no longer be tolerated. Until then, men's rights in the area of reproductive choice will continue to erode along with their bank accounts. Young men like the one in the video clip with Dr.Phil are paying the price for men's lack of support or interest in men's rights. Apparently, the young man's views are a joke to the host and females in Dr. Phil's audience but they should not be to the average American male. Perhaps it is time for a man's version of The View or other countershows that teach the American public that men's issues, views, and rights are as equally important as women's in the American cultural and legal system.
Update: Dr. Melissa has more thoughts on men's reproductive rights--they shouldn't have any lest they want to be tagged as pathetic losers:
At least one of Dr. Melissa's commmenters sees the irony in her view:
Yep, just another pathetic loser who wanted some reproductive rights--shame on him!
Yes, these daytime talk shows like Dr. Phil are silly and not worth watching for the most part, but that does not mean that they are harmless. All of us who care about equal justice in the courts for both women and men would do well to pay attention to the cultural messages that shows like this send out, that the men and their lawyers who speak up about reproductive choice are wimps and good-for-nothings who get their jollies by berating an innocent woman who had no idea that she could get pregnant. Men have few choices in today's arena of reproductive rights and must be fathers and pay the price for a good portion of their lives. Funny, this used to be the case for women in the "dark ages" and now it is seen as wrong -- for women. It is just as wrong for men.
Men must stand up for each other and demand justice by using alternative media (like Youtube) to get the word out that this type of sexist "justice" is unfair and will no longer be tolerated. Until then, men's rights in the area of reproductive choice will continue to erode along with their bank accounts. Young men like the one in the video clip with Dr.Phil are paying the price for men's lack of support or interest in men's rights. Apparently, the young man's views are a joke to the host and females in Dr. Phil's audience but they should not be to the average American male. Perhaps it is time for a man's version of The View or other countershows that teach the American public that men's issues, views, and rights are as equally important as women's in the American cultural and legal system.
Update: Dr. Melissa has more thoughts on men's reproductive rights--they shouldn't have any lest they want to be tagged as pathetic losers:
Men are the new victims. Welcome, men, to the horde of pathetic losers claiming their life is ruined by someone else. Wallow along with the rest of us, will you? Isn't that nice? Dr. Helen thinks men should unite and fight for their rights. It's already happening. And it is crazy. In this men's movement, no thought is given to the children. Oh, yeah! Them....
At least one of Dr. Melissa's commmenters sees the irony in her view:
I agree that abortion has become another way for men to use women and manipulate them. However, to play devil's advocate, my friend's marriage dissolved when his wife aborted their baby, even after he begged her to have it and promised that he would take custody and full care of it. I have always wondered why--even as her spouse and the father of the baby--he had absolutely no rights do determine whether the child lived or died. And yet if he had been Joe One-Night-Stand and she had the baby, he'd be legally responsible for life.
Yep, just another pathetic loser who wanted some reproductive rights--shame on him!
posted by Helen at 6:54 AM
246 Comments:
Is it true "Doctor" Phil doesn't have a Ph.D.?
Aside from that, what a grandstanding, misandric jackass.
I thought it was bad when he exploited that boy with behavioral problems - taking his mother on national TV and telling her he has all the "characteristics of a serial killer". If the boy's problems were serious they became more so after that. They might as well have promoted the show with: "See Dr. Phil Tame the Future Serial Killer with a Whip and Chair!" What a junk science jackass.
It is my understanding that he does indeed have a doctorate in psychology. I have also read that he is an amazing legal consultant. He can tell how a jurist will act on a case by looking at them. It is apparently an amazing talent.
I also read that he hates doing therapy because he does not like people or have much patience for them. And the final point I read was that he was sanctioned by his state licensing board for having a weird dual relationship with a patient.
The report alleges that the Dr. hired a patient to work in his office. OK, this is a violation of the APA ethics which are rather strict about not having dual relationships with patients. It gets weirder. Turns out, Phil was paid by the patient's father to give her the job. In that way Phil could keep an eye on her while pretending to hire her. She did actually work in the office, but he was paid to hire her. So he was lying to her and manipulating her while engaged in an unethical dual relationship with her.
When questioned about the events, Phil says "I guess no good deed goes unpunished." No personal responsibility allowed, just an offhand sounding quip to brush away any seriosu criticism. This is what I read, I am not stating them as facts, but allegations of the article I read. So no legal actions please.
But I think people like Dr. Phil because he is rude to people that his viewers do not like. It is kind of like the Jerry Springer show in that.
Anonymous 9:43:
I believe that Dr. Phil does have a PHD--he was a key speaker at last years American Psych Association convention (one reason I didn't go!) but nonetheless, his pandering to his audience and PC behavior is appalling to me at times.
I simply don't understand the Dr. Phil resentment, especially since I do not view him as misandric in the slightest.
He advocates responsible reproductive behaviour from both men and women.
Men are on the hook in a different way than women, but women are obviouslythe hook in reproductive matters in other way that men are not. It is not an outrage that the law directly and indirectly lays down incentives to stay in a monogamous relationship with one partner of the opposite sex, and it is not an outrage that the law in general provides that born and living children be supported by both partners who produced them, and not an outrage that the law recognizes individual rights of bodily integrity and personal autonomy which a woman may excercise at will;rights that would apply to men IF they could conceive and bear children, rights that apply to all competent adult individuals and are not taken away from women simply because men cannot conceive and bear children and find themselves in a perfectly equivalent physical condition.
Men and women are not the same in reproductive matters, and the special circumstances of the creation of new human beings underlies all the unfairness you complain of.
The fact is, men and women should by all means possible and permissible be encouraged to contain their desires within the state of marriage. Sex makes people, and men can not be permitted to engage in behaviour that produces people without being on the hook for the people they make.
Women may lie or be mistaken or a miracle may occur and a women who says she can't conceive or bear a child may in fact do so if she comes in the right kind of contact with the seed of a male. Men who want to guarantee no children will result from an act designed to produce children may rely upon various imperfect methods of birth control or sterilization. But there is no rational basis for excusing men from fatherhood if they fertilize a woman.
She may control the pregnancy in ways he cannot, because he is not pregnant.
He has not conceived nor will he bear a child; she has. Her health and well being and bodily integrity is at stake in ways his is not. ONce the child is born, there may even be a stronger biological tie between mother and child, and at least during the infants tender years she may have a greater claim to a special biological relationship. Men have rights to their born and living children, however, and the children have a right to their fathers. They have a right to support of mother and father.
This isn't misandry, and I don't understand why you think men should be able to cry FRAUD!!! and abandon born and living offspring when they have engaged in an act designed to produce children with a woman they don't feel particularly attacted to, with no desire to produce a child...knowing full well that a child may be born, even if the woman says she can't conceive. Society must demand people contain their sexual desires or pay the price of supporting any people they bring into the world.
"Society must demand people contain their sexual desires or pay the price of supporting any people they bring into the world."
When people tell feminists that, they're called anti-woman. When people tell men that, feminists applaud.
Anonymous said "Sex makes people, and men can not be permitted to engage in behaviour that produces people without being on the hook for the people they make."
This is nonsense.
In the west, sex does not lead to babies. It is women who **choose** to have babies.
http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm
We are crying fraud because fraud was perpetrated in these cases. Men who impregnate women should be held responsible, no person is arguing against this. Women who fraudulently entrap men to impregnate them should be held guilty of fraud.
Types of fraud would include: Stating that they are using birth control when they are not; stating that they are barren when they are not; stating that she is committed to terminating a pregnancy through abortion if she becomes impregnated by their union when she will not; statimg that a man is the father of a child when he is not.
Fraud, plain and simple. Gender doesn't enter into it. For the record, I am antibortion and the proud father of four children. My eldest daughter is from a previous marriage and I pay three times the court mandated child support to her mother because this helps relieve the stress in her mother's life and whatever relieves her mother's stress relieves my daughter's stress. And my daughter spends half her time with me, my wife, and our triplets. So legally I could weasel out of child support all together. But that would be wrong.
So where you and I should share much common ground, we are in complete disagreement about fraud and the consequences thereof. I never participated in an unwanted pregnancy because I made behavioral choices that minimized the chances of that happening. Had an unplanned pregnancy occured, I would have stepped up and done the right thing for my child. Fair is fair and fraud is fraud.
Trey
Western women have 100% control over whether or not they have babies.
Tmink:
There is a big difference between "stating" words versus getting a statement written down, signed and notorized. If all a man had to do in order to avoid paying child support was say that a woman "stated" that she couldn't conceive many men would grow noses a mile long.
In the sales world we go by a credo, TAL, "They all lie". When it comes to he said/she said in the bedroom, in the heat of the moment, people say what they have to say to get the desired result and say what they need afterward to avoid the consequences.
Dr. Phil panders to his primarily female audience just like the rest of worthless daytime TV.
As your husband observed, Youtube is rapidly acquiring a reputation for censoring "unacceptable" (= un-PC) viewpoints. "Surprisingly" enough, these viewpoints include typical conservative material, but never liberal tropes or messages of hate and jihad from the Islamists.
As ever, freedom of the press only belongs to those who own a press.
So, did the girlfriend lie to him or did she change her mind? Many people don't know what they think about parenthood until it happens. Can't make a legal case on what she THOUGHT she would feel about parenthood. That goes for guys, too. Plenty of guys out there who discover--through an unplanned pregnancy--that they love being a parent. A man who would argue "...and she can't make me!" AFTER the fact is just as wrong as a woman who aborts. Not as murderous, but just as wrong.
Anonymous 12:57 is correct, although this is the wrong crowd for that kind of clear argument.
I don't partcularly like Dr. Phil, and I'm not surprised that modern American women have become so duplicitous and arrogant, given the massive legal advantage they have in the family courts.
Nevertheless, every guy should realize that if he sticks his penis into a vagina that he's not married or even slightly committed to he's taking a huge chance. Men should automatically assume that all women are lying to them, at least until they know them well enough to be able to judge otherwise.
Bottom line, if you're screwing a girl you're not married to you'd better be prepared to accept the consequences.
Captain Holly said; "Bottom line, if you're screwing a girl you're not married to you'd better be prepared to accept the consequences."
I've got a better idea. Why not fight the laws and the people that make men responsible for something over which they have ***absolutely*** no control?
corporal holly-
(just demoted you)
Nevertheless, every guy should realize that if he sticks his penis into a vagina that he's not married or even slightly committed to he's taking a huge chance. Men should automatically assume that all women are lying to them, at least until they know them well enough to be able to judge otherwise.
Bottom line, if you're screwing a girl you're not married to you'd better be prepared to accept the consequences.
Absolutely not. Because the fraud and abuses go beyond that - they trot out the lies, false claims, etc. during divorce proceedings as well, so marriage won't save anyone. I don't know how this is going to shake out, but there are some very pissed off men out there that should be pissed off - because they're right.
Anonymous 12:30 AM said...
"I've got a better idea. Why not fight the laws and the people that make men responsible for something over which they have ***absolutely*** no control? "
This post, this thread of comments, and especially Anonymous12:30AM are unbelievable. "men", "responsible", "absolutely", "no control". What does that say about men? They can't control their sexual desires, sex activities, etc.? A man can use a condom every time and they will have absolute control. A man can get a Vasectomy and have absolute control. A man can practice the conservative method of birth control, no sex out of wedlock, and have a lot of control, but yes not absolute. This argument of men and their lack of control is laughable if it was not so sad.
Anonymous 6:14:
What you really believe is that men do not have the right to have sex with women without being "punished" for it, just like women in the 16th century. Turn your words around--"A woman can use birth control every time and they will have absolute control. A woman can have her tubes tied and have absolute control. A woman can practice the conservative method of birth control, no sex out of wedlock, and have a lot of control." So a man must be forced to marry before he can have sex, or get a get a vasectomy which means he may never be able to have kids just because in his younger years he may want to have sex? Should women do the same? If so, then you must also believe that women should be "punished" for sex and forced to have a baby no matter what.
Anonymous 6:14 here.
Gee, Helen. I was responding to anonymous12:30AM's statement, "Why not fight the laws and the people that make men responsible for something over which they have ***absolutely*** no control? "
Men do and can have plenty of control. They are just dependent on women. Also, in your response you failed to mention men using condoms for birth control. Maybe your retort re: "being "punished" for it" was regarding condoms.
I am sorry you feel women as so strong and men are so weak and under women's control. I just dont' believe that men are that weak. I believe men can be in control of their sexual activities.
Helen said, "Turn your words around--'A woman can use birth control every time and they will have absolute control. A woman can have her tubes tied and have absolute control. A woman can practice the conservative method of birth control, no sex out of wedlock, and have a lot of control.'"
Um, yeah. Turn it around either way and it makes sense. How about if both men and women live that way?
Anybody, male or female, who engages in sexual activity with someone with whom they adamantly do NOT want children has the ABSOLUTE responsibility to take measures to make sure that doesn't happen. It's not hard-- use condoms AND withdraw, use the pill (patch, shots). AND for those men, and there appear to be many, who indicate they don't EVER want to father children, get a DAMN vasectomy.
Unless you do these things, YOU are responsible--no fair whining about how you were tricked. Only an IDIOT (or a liar) claims they were defrauded about such things. For chrissakes, it's not even just about unwanted pregnancy, it's about STD's etc. What-- am I supposed to feel sorry for people who relied on the other party's word that they didn't have an STD? I don't think so.
What happened to personal responsibility, Helen?
"What you really believe is that men do not have the right to have sex with women without being "punished" for it..."
What-is there some fundamental, constitutional right to have sex with whomever you choose, without having to face the consequences or take any personal reponsibility? Somebody please let me know. If so, I've got some booty calls to make.
Andrea
Anonymous 6:14:
"I believe men can be in control of their sexual activities."
And what about the outcome of their sexual activities? Do you believe women should have one set of rules, men another? If so, why? Why don't you promote women being in control of their sexual activities?
So a man must be forced to marry before he can have sex
I am failing to see the problem here. Must be my theoconservatism showing.
Absolutely not. Because the fraud and abuses go beyond that - they trot out the lies, false claims, etc. during divorce proceedings as well, so marriage won't save anyone. I don't know how this is going to shake out, but there are some very pissed off men out there that should be pissed off - because they're right.
Look, I'm not denying that the current system of child support and family law is stacked against men -- I watched my brother's divorce, and it wasn't pretty or fair. The whole system is in serious need of reform.
But if most women are the Lying Jezebels that you describe (and I agree there's plenty of evidence to support your position) why on earth would any rational, responsible man have sex with any female that he doesn't know and trust conmpletely?
I mean, if it's stupid for a young woman to go to a frat party by herself, get drunk, and have sex with men she's barely met, why then is it not also stupid for a young frat boy to have sex with a drunk girl whom he barely knows and who assures him that she's on the pill? How smart is that?
Bottom line is if you can't trust women, and the system is stacked in their favor why then would you choose to play their game in the first place? That's not unfair; that's plain stupid. Either change the rules, or be very, very careful about whom you swap DNA with.
What-is there some fundamental, constitutional right to have sex with whomever you choose, without having to face the consequences or take any personal reponsibility?
Yes, apparently, there is. If you're a woman.
Anyway, I'll admit, that I do occasionally watch Dr. Phil. I'm strangely fascinated by the type of people who are willing to air their dirty laundry in public, and think that somehow a talk show host is going to help them. But, while I disagree with Dr. Phil in this, in his defense, he does take the majority position on this issue.
However, having seen several other episodes of his program, it's pretty clear that on pretty much every issue, he absolves women of the same responsibilities that he holds men to. For example, if a man expects his wife to do some housework if she doesn't have a job, he's wrong. After all, in the big picture, does it really matter if the house is a mess? But, if the wife expects the husband to make more money, well, then he should spend more time in the office or get a second job if need be. If a man stays home and takes care of the kids, he should be looking for a job. If a woman stays home with the kids, well, then being a stay-at-home mom is the equivalent of holding three full-time jobs, or some such nonsense. I've seen him take practically the opposite view on the same issue based on whether the complainant in the case was male or female.
Basically, his entire view is that men exist to be beasts of burden for women, which I suppose is much easier to do if you're a psychologist with your own talk show.
I can't, for the life of me, figure out why any man would ever go on that show. It doesn't really matter what the issue is, he will almost always come out on the losing side.
So, personally, I do enjoy watching the show, but I think Dr. Phil is somewhat of a jackass, if for no other reason than the fact that he doesn't ever say anything that isn't 100% predictable to anyone who's watched his show at least a few times. And yet, guys still go on the show thinking Dr. Phil is going to take their side.
Captain Holly,
Even women who one is familiar with can get pregnant like the Dr. Phil case--the young man in question had an ongoing relationship with his girlfriend who told him she was not able to have children due to a medical condition and also used birth control pills. So being careful of whom you "swap DNA" with is not always safe either. The real problem is that the law is unequal in this area. Women can choose to be a mother, or not. Men have no such rights at all.
And BTW, the game is called life. What do you suggest--that all men who do not want to marry and are straight stay home and beat themselves off until they are 80 so that they will not impregnate women? What kind of life is that?
I should also add one thing: I think Dr. Phil is a male chauvinist of the worst sort. I think he believes that women, quite frankly, can't be held to the same standards as men, simply because they are women. Men must be logical, responsible, mature, motivated, etc., but women cannot be expected to exhibit these same behaviors. Because they're women.
So, a guy must take responsibility for himself AND for the women, because she can't take responsibility for herself (obviously, because she's a woman).
I honestly think that's how he views things, which is why I find it so ironic that his audience is filled with women applauding his male chauvinism.
Rizzo,
Or perhaps the female audience is applauding Dr. Phil's enabling of their full and "extra" rights without responsibility. What a deal!
"And BTW, the game is called life. What do you suggest--that all men who do not want to marry and are straight stay home and beat themselves off until they are 80 so that they will not impregnate women?"
Um, no. We suggest using a condom (and withdrawing, if you're really paranoid) or getting a vasectomy. (If you dont ever want to get married, chances are you dont want to have children either.)
Andrea
True. But as I said, I find it ironic, not surprising.
In fact, he holds pretty much the same views as most feminist organizations, although perhaps for different reasons (although probably not as different as most feminists would like the rest of us to believe). Feminists want more rights and fewer responsibilities for women because it's (supposedly) good for individual women. Dr. Phil wants the same thing because we can't expect anything else from women anyway. They're like children.
Atticus,
No, the women who have children and take care of them are responsible but they at least had a choice. There is no such equivalent choice for men. And you underestimate the financial part of caring for a child. Imagine a twenty year old having to pay 500.00 a month for child support for at least 18 years. That is no small feat. If it were, women would have no problem doing it. Many mothers whose ex-husbands or boyfriends have custody bale out of child support or never pay it in the first place.
Women who have babies are the responsible ones.
I agree. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
Are you actually saying that women who abort are doing something responsible?
Obviously not. I can't even imagine where you got that idea.
I have yet to see a woman give birth and then force the father to raise the baby alone, to juggle jobs and laundry and supper and babies waking in the night.
That's because adoption is another option. In some places she can put the child up for adoption without even notifying the father (another "right" that women have).
Around here, there are hospitals that allow women to drop off their newborns, no questions asked. She doesn't even have to leave her name.
Anyway, it's always assumed that we are talking about the right for men to avoid responsibility (one women already have), but we are also talking about the right for men to take responsibility (another one women already have).
" Her health and well being and bodily integrity is at stake in ways his is not."
BS. When women starting having to register for the draft, you may start to have a point about equality when it comes to idssues o bodily integrity. Or are you really trying to equate nine months of pregnancy to a 12-month comabt tour in Iraq?
@ Anonymous 9:18
"Men do and can have plenty of control. They are just dependent on women......
I am sorry you feel women as so strong and men are so weak and under women's control."
Is this supposed ot be a reasoned argument? You contradict yourself from onew sentnece ot the other.
Andrea,
"What happened to personal responsibility, Helen?"
Her point is that it is supposed to apply equallly. You seem to have a problem with that.
I have yet to see a woman give birth and then force the father to raise the baby alone, to juggle jobs and laundry and supper and babies waking in the night.
My mother left. I was raised by my father. Just saying.
My experience in reading the posts is that women are not to be trusted. How sad. I know that the topic is reproductive fraud committed by women, but it still saddens me.
And Blogger does not have the space to cover the posts about fraud committed by men with the purpose of getting laid. So the whole thing saddens me.
It raises the question, who won the sexual revolution? I read that you cannot trust a woman to tell you the truth about getting pregnant, I know you cannot trust men to mean what they say when they are trying to get in your pants, so who won. Or have we met the enemy and he is us?
Helen asked a good question, something like "So then a man will have to get married to get laid?" Pardon my faulty recollection. Well, it used to have to be that way. Or it used to supposed to have been that way. Or something.
I find the entire subject disheartening. It makes me feel so fortunate to have a good marriage to a wonderful woman. She is beside me now, pardon me while I close and tell her that I love her and that I am so lucky to have her in my life.
Trey
What I'm getting from all these posts is that men really, really cannot be expected to control their hormones. It's a health issue, doncha know; a man's got to get laid or he'll break out or get blueballs and who knows wht. It's just not fair or healthy to expect him to keep it in his pants.
And the women--why, you'd think they were genetically engineered to bear children or something. But that's deterministic, no?
It's a health issue, doncha know; a man's got to get laid or he'll break out or get blueballs and who knows wht. It's just not fair or healthy to expect him to keep it in his pants.
That's pretty much what I hear from all the people who insist that we must hand condoms out in high schools, or even middle schools.
And why should women need to have abortions? Why can't they just keep it in their pants? If they did, abortion wouldn't even be an issue.
jim:
"Her point is that it is supposed to apply equallly. You seem to have a problem with that."
I'm not sure what you mean by "it". Responsibility for the consequences of unprotected sex? Well, sure-- as I said, I won't listen to any complaints from any man or woman about an unwanted pregnancy occuring after unprotected sex. But I think these things are ALREADY applied equally. I mean, shit--the biology is different. And NOTHING can put the parties in the same circumstances. It's the woman who HAS to carry the baby, like it or not. She doesn't get to opt out of that and a man unfortunately can't opt IN to being the host.
Anyway, I don't have a problem with holding both parties equally responsible. I have given female clients the business when they want to tell me what a terrible person the father is and how he shouldn't have visitation. Unless he's a serious danger to the children, I tell them, "YOU picked him. Now live with the consequences."
But, again, I won't listen to any whining from either side and THAT appears to be what Helen is sticking up for. There is NO SUCH THING as fraud in these types of cases. Only failure to exercise good judgment and take personal responsibility.
The fact is--most men DON'T take responsibility for contraception. I like my boyfriend alot, but he almost never asks and sure as hell doesn't pay for it. They hate wearing condoms and they figure it's more trouble for her, so she'll probably take care of it. FYI, contraception is expensive, guys.
By the way, I don't have a problem with requiring both men and women to register for the draft.
Andrea
Dr. Phil panders to his audience of women. Whether intentionally or not, he show a heavy bias as can be seen in the two cases in the video.
What Dr. Phil most likely really cares about is being famous and making money. He's used his pandering to be quite successful at that.
Even women who one is familiar with can get pregnant like the Dr. Phil case--the young man in question had an ongoing relationship with his girlfriend who told him she was not able to have children due to a medical condition and also used birth control pills. So being careful of whom you "swap DNA" with is not always safe either. The real problem is that the law is unequal in this area. Women can choose to be a mother, or not. Men have no such rights at all.
Well, as I said earlier, I'm not going to defend the current legal situation. Men are clearly at a disadvantage when it comes to the courts and family issues, and the government support structures for women aren't even available to them.
For example, nothing sets my teeth on edge more than a local "domestic violence shelter" that helps X number of "women and children" each year. It's as if there is no such thing as violence against men, or if there is, then they "deserved" it or are just being wimps.
And BTW, the game is called life. What do you suggest--that all men who do not want to marry and are straight stay home and beat themselves off until they are 80 so that they will not impregnate women? What kind of life is that?
The problem is, Helen, there are NO rights that do not carry responsibilities with them. If a man wants the privilege of having regular sex with a woman then he must assume the responsibility for any potential offspring. Unless he can show he was coerced into sex or his donated sperm was used without his permission, he bears some responsibility.
And yes, what's wrong with abstinence? I didn't have intercourse before I met my wife at age 25; it wasn't that difficult. And I'm very glad I didn't have sex with one of my previous girlfriends, as she turned out to be a real psycho. Had I not exercised some restraint I could have had quite a miserable life to this point.
Now, I'm willing to let men take whatever risks they want to, as long as they don't affect me directly. But when the negative consequences of their actions inevitably occur, they should be willing to accept them. That's part of the game of life, too.
There are possible cases of reproductive fraud where the man had absolutely no responsibility. Like if a woman used the sperm from a used condom to artificially inseminate herself. And the case mentioned comes very close - claiming she was infertile and claiming she was using birth control.
tmink-
Helen asked a good question, something like "So then a man will have to get married to get laid?" Pardon my faulty recollection. Well, it used to have to be that way. Or it used to supposed to have been that way. Or something.
No - it used to be a world of bullshit. People getting together that weren't sexually compatible and having to spend the rest of their lives with an incompatible spouse. So you have a lot of men visiting prostitutes, with all that underground, deception, secrecy, scandal, etc. that entails. Then you have a lot of men with mistresses, which is de facto polygamy - except with little or no honesty or rights. Then you have a lot of misery and deprivation, basically for everyone.
Yeah - what a golden age, we really need to turn back the clock to the 50's or whatever the current age of sexually repressive nostalgia is.
"So then a man will have to get married to get laid?"
I forget who said it, but it was a line from a movie or something, but it went something like this: "Each generation believes that they are the ones that invented premarital sex."
The problem is more than just one over child support, it's that lying is seen as acceptable behavior in many arenas--especially sexual ones.
The Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was no big deal because it was lying about sex. More students than not cheat on exams and assignments. Why do we not expect women lying about their fertility?
Wait, if she claimed she was infertile, why in god's name would she need to be on the pill? If you bought that story, you're an idiot.
She told you she was taking the pill and, even though you REALLY don't want to have kids with her, you didn't care enough to use an alternate method of your own like a condom, just to be safe? Big consequences like that, but you just left it all up to her. Idiot.
Btw, check out the personals on craigslist. Particularly the "Men for Men" section. You'll see loads of married men or men with girlfriends looking for nookie on the side (with either sex).
It's all so inspiring.
You're as heterosexual as they come, but you can't get laid to save your life. Hence the anger toward women.
titurator veritatis:
Why do men get married then? I really want to know. Please 'splain.
As for avoiding "sensual contact", go for it. I suspect you already have, though possibly not by choice.
The bottom line is this-- men wont avoid contact. They want it too much. But while they're out here lying through their teeth, pretending they love a woman that they know they don't and possibly getting married simply to ensure the regular nookie then screwing around on the side too, they get their Hanes all in a wad about women with similarly low motives.
Hey guys, you get what you pay for.
It reminds me of a song by Salt and Pepa--"You showed me what to do/exactly what to do.."
Andrea,
"By the way, I don't have a problem with requiring both men and women to register for the draft."
I may be all in favor of men getting preganant, but for now neither of our wishes matter. The point is that the bodily integrity argument is inherently biased toward women in our society, not just in military sevice, but also in workplace injuries, street violence, the criminal justice system, on and on and on. We can change some parts and not others; the situtation is never going to be equal, so let's just drop the bodily integrity altogether. It's fine if a woman doesn't want to reproduce, but a little truth in advertizing would help a lot, maybe a tattoo acrsoo both cheeks "Does not want to breed". After that much of a warning no one would have any excuse for not getting the message. Or maybe a woman wants to breed, but just not with whoever is the lay of the momnet. Taht would call for a different tattoo.
Well, maybe not a tattoo.
Western women have 100% control over whether or not to produce offspring.
You can argue all day long; but the **fact** will remain that western women have 100% control.
Sex does **not** lead to babies any more than does dinner at a restaurant.
A woman's CHOICES leads to babies.
And those choices are hers ALONE to make; legally, medically, culturally etc etc.
Western men have 100% control over whether or not to produce offspring.
You can argue all day long; but the **fact** will remain that western men have 100% control.
Sex does **not** lead to babies any more than does dinner at a restaurant.
A man's CHOICES leads to babies.
And those choices are his ALONE to make; legally, medically, culturally etc etc.
Am I wrong? Wear a condom. Withdraw. Vasectomy (which is reversible btw). But TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELF. IT IS NOT MY JOB ALONE!
Western men have 100% control over whether or not to produce offspring.
You are wrong. This is not true. If I want to produce I child, I need a willing participant. I have no control over that.
Women don't even need a willing participant, just a sperm bank.
well ho do you explain thr stories of women who poke holes in condoms, scrape out used condoms to get pregnant, then this.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29035.html
so its all a mans fault then is it, and a woman has no responsibility then.
men have 3 ways, women 17,
men have abstinence, vasectomies and condoms, women.... have so many more... so its the mans fault then.. and women need not bother with anything.
thats the problem these women want the rights but no responsibility,
"You are wrong. This is not true. If I want to produce I child, I need a willing participant. I have no control over that."
Oh.My.God.
You are an idiot. You are just like Eric Idle's character in Monty Python's Life of Brian who declares he wants to have babies. "Where's the baby gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?", they taunt him. And he becomes offended. So, being the revolutionaries that they are, they agree to fight for his right to have babies, even though he can't, which of course is not his fault.
Look, I'd love to be black, six foot tall and play in the NBA. Who do I blame for this travesty of justice?
You're a retard. In the meantime, I will fight for your right to have babies, brother. I mean, sister.
I was just pointing out where you were wrong, and the other commenter was right.
And you were wrong.
And very much an idiot yourself, if you want to play that game.
childfree male (thank god):
dude, if YOU bring the condom and put it on, she can't poke holes in it. if YOU take it off and flush it, she can't scrape it out. ('cause i'm sure that shit happens ALL the time.)
men have 3, women have 17 options for contraception? um, so invent some more, retard. i can't TELL you how pleased i would be if i didn't have to pump MY body full of strange chemicals just to make sure all i got was a nut off with you and maybe a case of the clap, rather than your abhorrent offspring.
It is true, men have very little choice. Why are they not working harder on the mens' pill? To those women who say they can't trust men to take it, then take your own to be on the safe side. This is no excuse to not make the mens' pill available. No one should force anyone to be a parent, full stop. Women have fought for many years for choice in this matter, why do they wish to restrict mens' rights? These bitches who lie and cheat for that almighty spawn are horrible, and no man should have to put up with it, and be berated at the same time. The WOMEN who do this WANTED to breed, therefore THEY should shoulder all the responsibility. If these men are not consulted, then it's nothing to do with them, pal.
Well rizzo, if it comes to that, there are egg donors as well as sperm donors. and surrogate mothers, so I guess that makes YOU wrong. Sure, you still have to pay for the egg and surrogate, just like a chick has to pay for the sperm.
Look, I'd love to be black, six foot tall and play in the NBA. Who do I blame for this travesty of justice?
And to point out further that you are an idiot, this misses my point entirely. The point has nothing to do with my wishes. I have no desire to change biology. The point is that men basically are at the whims of women, both biologically and legally, when it comes to child-bearing. I'm not complaining about the biology part (nor is anyone here), just the legal part.
Jackass.
A surrogate mother still requires a willing participant.
"The point is that men basically are at the whims of women, both biologically and legally, when it comes to child-bearing. I'm not complaining about the biology part (nor is anyone here), just the legal part."
Jesus Christ, man. In the second sentence quoted you said you weren't complaining about biology, when in the previous sentence you just did.
Make up your mind. Jackass.
And a sperm donor requires a willing participant too.
You know, I agree with you, rizzo. THIS SHIT IS UNFAIR. I'd like to have children, but I'd like for my HUSBAND to be the one to carry it for nine months.
Let's make a LAW. Think God will listen?
Actually, you cannot flush condoms, as it is not good for the sewage systems. How are you to insure 100% that no scheming, manipulative breeding obsessed woman will not find a way to poke a hole in it. She could go to the box of condoms, and poke tiny holes in them through their packaging; she could even go into your wallet and poke holes in the condom there. You would have to keep the condom(s) with you literally everywhere, even in the shower to make absolutely sure.
Feminists see men only as a sperm donor, therefore they are exerting a great deal of pressure to oppress men by denying them the same reproductive choices as women. Anonymous, you are putting YOUR reproductive choices in the hands of men. I realise that you have to introduce chemicals and hormones into your body to insure no offspring, but that is what you have to do. Men do not even have this choice. {I am not a bio-chemist, a pharmacologist, or a medical doctor-I cannot 'invent' new forms of male contraceptive out of thin air. If these chemicals bother you so much, then you have condoms, tubals, Essure clips, or abstinence, exactly in the same boat as men. Doesn't sound great, does it?
Hey, Mr. Lonely, does that line--"you better get your act together, etc." work when you meet women?
I thought not. Making it clear to the world that you are one crazy-angry dude is a sure way to a lifetime without friends. Men OR women.
This is relatively easy folks.
Not married to her? Don't fu*k her.
It's fantastically simple. I'm married with a child and I get hit on at work a LOT. I could have had 3 different girls at work by now. I love my wife and won't cheat on her. But If I were an asshole and did want to I still wouldn't. Because I don't know these girls from Eve and I don't trust them for all the reasons stated above.
Otherwise, you're responsible if she gets pregnant.
All the being said though, the way paternity fraud is rewarded in the US justice system is just sick. A woman can lie to a guy about the kid being his, and even if he finds out later that it's not biologically his and his devoted 'wife' was being serviced by 3 different guys, guess what? TOO BAD bro. You still have to pay for life because you 'assumed' responsiblity the first time when she pulled the wool over your eyes.
And what about just having oral sex with a girl and she takes the used condom and impregnates herself? Again, too bad, your sperm, your kid. Even though you never had sex and you explicitly avoided if for these reasons. Again, it's her power, her choice but your money.
Defend the above instances andrea or cassandra and I'll be amazed at your audacity.
I never, at any point, was complaining about the biology of it at all. Not in the part you quoted, not in any time before that In fact, I wasn't really complaining about anything. I was simply pointing out where your statement was incorrect.
Let's rehash shall we:
The above commenter stated that women have 100% control over reproduction. This is, for the most part true. One could quibble slightly with the 100%, but it's damn near close to it.
Then you stated men have 100% control over reproduction. This is not true. So obviously so, that I feel even more retarded than I apparently already am having argued with you about it.
And all of this misses the point entirely, which is that women still have close to 100% control after they get pregnant, where men have none. Yes, fine, whatever, the man could have kept his pants on. So could the woman. But let's assume the deed is done. The women now has three options: keep the baby, abort it, or put it up for adoption. The man has one option: deal with her decision.
This, basically, is the argument that has been laid out by others. I don't suppose you'll understand it, despite the fact that it's not that difficult. Your man hatred has made you lack any rationality when it comes to the issue. There are certainly good and rational arguments against allowing men to forgo their parental responsibilities after the woman is pregnant, but you haven't made any. I'm somewhat undecided on the issue myself, but it does surprise me how hostile some women are to the idea that men (and some women) might sometimes feel that men treated unfairly.
childfree male:
"Doesn't sound great, does it?"
Nope, but welcome to my life and it wasn't the women who started this complaint here.
My suggestion: withdraw, wipe it up and flush down the toilet. Besides, I like the money shot.
Face it, there is no excuse--though you all would desperately like there to be one.
anonymous 3:05pm-
Wait, if she claimed she was infertile, why in god's name would she need to be on the pill? If you bought that story, you're an idiot.
She told you she was taking the pill and, even though you REALLY don't want to have kids with her, you didn't care enough to use an alternate method of your own like a condom, just to be safe? Big consequences like that, but you just left it all up to her. Idiot.
I don't know, I only saw the clip here and I don't watch that misandrist's show. But she could have spun it like she was being ultra-safe - "the doctor says there's little chance I can conceive, but I'm the pill just to be safe". He sounds like he was in a fairly involved dating situation with her, she could have lulled him into it over time.
My suggestion: withdraw, wipe it up and flush down the toilet. Besides, I like the money shot.
Face it, there is no excuse--though you all would desperately like there to be one.
Bullshit - there is no excuse for fraud, reproductive or otherwise. You don't blame the victim of an elaborate robbery for not forseeing every angle, you lock the criminals up and collect the money.
Same logic here. Although I suspect men will start to be more careful about how they dispose of used condoms when word of things like this start to get around.
rizzo:
"Then you stated men have 100% control over reproduction. This is not true."
I guess just by saying it, you think you've established a fact? Pray, HOW is this not true?
"And all of this misses the point entirely, which is that women still have close to 100% control after they get pregnant, where men have none."
Again, unsubstantiated.
"Yes, fine, whatever, the man could have kept his pants on. So could the woman."
Well, SHITFIRE! That's exactly my point, mate! And THAT, jackass, is THE point.
What is to be done after both parties have screwed up may be an interesting discussion, but that is NOT what we have been discussing. And it would be an unnecessary discussion, if just ONE of the parties did as they should.
But to address your non-point about what happens after, it may seem unfair that the choice of abortion or birth is solely for the woman to decide. (Adoption, BTW, is not a decision that can be made only by the woman.) But, as you and I have already discussed, biology is unfair and we are forced to deal with it. Perhaps someday, it will be possible for a woman to say, "You know what? I don't want it, but if you do--you can get an artificial womb and gestate it if you want." When that time comes, the law will change. As for now, the law is an imperfect solution to an imperfect situation. By definition, one or the other party must have their say and the other party's feeling about it will be ignored. So, the only question is, which party is that going to be? It's not hard to see that, biology and the current state of technology, that decision was left to the party who is most immediately and obviously going to be inconvenienced by the pregnancy and labor.
And, btw, I LOVE men. Just because you don't know how to argue a point, doesn't mean I hate men.
"(Adoption, BTW, is not a decision that can be made only by the woman.) "
False. No question drop boxes are available in lots of states.
"But to address your non-point about what happens after, it may seem unfair that the choice of abortion or birth is solely for the woman to decide.... But, as you and I have already discussed, biology is unfair and we are forced to deal with it."
Well, this is an interesting take on the question. You appear to be arguing that there is no need for a legal remedy for an inequality. There goes a century's worth of legislation to correct gender inequalities.
"And, btw, I LOVE men. Just because you don't know how to argue a point, doesn't mean I hate men."
Well, LOVING men doesn't mean you know how to argue a point either, obviously.
Oh yeah? Well, well... well you're a doo doo head!
*sigh*
I don't suppose we could get back to the topic at hand? You know, without rancor? It's killing what could be an interesting discussion.
When a woman gets herself pregnant and ***DECIDES*** to have the baby - a decision which is ENITIRELY hers - legally, medically, etc - then the prospective father should be asked whether or not he wishes to be the legal father.
If he testifies that he wants to be the legal father then he should also bear responsibility for the birth and also have equal access rights to the child.
If not, the woman should bear sole responsibility for the birth.
It seems to me that the option to sign a simple contract when a couple start dating could settle this easily. How so? Since the woman has near perfect knowledge of her fertility AND has a number of choices even if she does get pregnant, she would simply declare that she wishes to relinquish the right to demand financial support for any children that result. If she does not sign and pregnancy results, the guy has absolutely no come back at all. There's no "she told me she was on the pill" or "she said he'd have an abortion". It's case closed. Pay up. The contract would hold for that couple in perpetuity or until superceded or nullified by later agreement, so it would only rarely need to be addressed. Honest women would gain because the contract gives them an opportunity to prove that they have no intention of defrauding their partner, and responsible men would gain firstly because the financial incentive for entrapment disappears and secondly because by having sex initially subject to, and then later without, the contract, they could demonstrate the commitment to a long term relationship and the acceptance of responsibilities that a women seeks.
Indeed it seems that as long as the contract is standardised and thus cheap - a simple notary public form perhaps - the only people who lose are those women intending to commit fraud or those so irresponsible and/or obstinate that they not only get themselves pregnant while in near total control of their fertility, but IN ADDITION refuse to take any of the options other than keeping the child. With the contract as an option, men need no longer be suspicious of decent women, and decent women can rest assured that they will not suffer unfairly for the actions of their crooked or feckless sisters.
I don't suppose we could get back to the topic at hand? You know, without rancor? It's killing what could be an interesting discussion.
That's what I would have hoped for, but apparently, I'm an idiot and a retard, so what do you expect?
Anyway, I apologize for my part in the name-calling, since I usually abhor such practices. I just get rather irritating when someone willfully misinterprets my point and then calls me a moron.
Back to the discussion at hand:
What is to be done after both parties have screwed up may be an interesting discussion, but that is NOT what we have been discussing.
Isn't this precisely what we have been discussing? Dr. Helen linked to Dr. Phil, which had a case where the woman was already pregnant and the guy did not want the child. Then several people, include yourself, have argued that he shouldn't have taken his pants off. Fine, but what to do now? Should he be forced to pay for a child he never wanted? Or should he be able to opt out?
I can see arguments for both sides, but saying he should have kept his pants on is kind of moot at this point.
In general, you'd probably find it hard to believe that I agree with you more than you know. I think that when you have sex, you deal with the consequences. Since I'm opposed to abortion, I generally think the woman should have the child, and the man should help take care of it, unless it's placed up for adoption (and they both agree on it). But since abortion is legal, I'm not sure what's wrong with saying, hey, maybe we need a little more equity here, without being called a retard, moron, etc.
Personally, my actual feeling is that it would probably be a bad idea to allow men to opt out, as it would encourage additional promiscuity and irresponsibility (although I'm not sure how much more could exist at this point), especially among poorer people who could least afford it. However, I'm rather shocked at the animosity that people receive just for thinking that things could be a little more fair, as if nothing is ever unfair to men.
And you asked me how it is true that men don't have 100% control of reproduction. Well, to answer the question once again, men can't have children unless they find a willing participant, and cannot terminate a pregnancy once it has occurred, even if they don't want it. Women can do both of these things, which suggests to me that women have more control over reproduction than men do. Again, I'm not complaining about that biological fact, I'm just stating that it is incorrect to suggest that men and women have the same level of control over reproduction. We don't. If you want to argue that the situation is fine as it is, fine, but let's not pretend the situation is something different than it is.
Well, as the father of two boys, what this sort of crap means is that I will raise them to consider women a protected class of liar. "It's like this boys, men and women both lie. But women are protected when they do. So don't trust them -- ever -- because even when shown to be a liar, no one will hold them accountable." I'm sure that will do wonders in helping them to find good mates.
As for ANYONE who defends this sort of women with "The guy should have kept it in his pants," do you understand the principle of telling the truth ? What if an auto manufacturer sold a car with defective seat-belts ? Would you tell your sister her now-deceased husband "should have been a better driver -- if he'd AVOIDED the accident he wouldn't have NEEDED the seatbelt" ?
Of course premarital sex carries attendant risks. DRIVING carries attendant risks. LOTS of things we do have risks. Rational people moderate or attenuate their behavior based on their understanding of the risks and their willingness to assume them. NOBODY has the right to unfairly increase those risks by lying about them. And I am sickened by anyone trying to diminish the responsibility any woman to tell the %$#^$&& truth by pointing out the real or perceived mistakes made by a man.
It's frighteningly reminiscent of the attitude that "women who dress provocatively and go to a drunken frat party invite rape." Just as no one "deserves" to be raped -- no matter how stupid their behavior -- so no man "deserves" to become a father because someone lied to him about the risks.
I don't ask for much -- just a little consistency in the application of logic and laws. But perhaps that's become too much for large portions of our population.
ms:
Your contract sounds good in theory. Certainly, it would eliminate any such fraud defense on the man's part. But that whole, "It ain't signed so pay up" part wont work because it still doesn't ensure that they will in fact pay up. And then we're pretty much back where we are now.
jim:
No need for a legal remedy for an inequality? No, I'm all for a legal remedy for this bioligical inequality. I've already called for legislation so that EITHER my husband or myself can gestate our future children.
Stand with me, brother!
rizzo:
We're still back where we started. For a woman to reproduce, she needs a willing participant too. Granted, his participation is not as...time-consuming? Rigorous? Painful? I don't know what to say. It's all pleasure. So, certainly, that makes it easier for a woman to find a willing participant. But it IS still an option for men. The fact that it is so easy for men and so NOT easy for women is something I can tell you women don't relish. But we're stuck with it and so are you, I'm afraid.
As for after conception, I already addressed that. You say you want more equity. Well, how is that going to work? As I said, there can only be one winner and one loser. I suppose, based on your acknowledged biases, you would want a presumption in favor of life? If either party says they want the child, the mother will be forced to carry the child to term? Do you not see the practical difficulties with that? A wicked mother may sabotage the pregnancy or, if she's really depressed, kill herself and thus the child. Obviously, you're talking about putting an even heavier burden on females to take care for their contraception, because the father can force them to go to term. And obviously, she can keep it in her pants. And women already DO take the burden the vast majority of the time. Not because we can be forced to take an unwanted pregnancy to term, but simply because the unfair, natural fact it that WE are the ones who are primarily inconvenienced by an unplanned pregnancy. And any such risk carries with it the knowledge that you don't ever know for sure whether the father will actually step up to the plate. That's even if the pregnancy was planned.
I'm sorry but your plan is just not going to work.
But I am sorry that I called you an idiot and a retard.
When a woman gets herself pregnant the law allows her to treat the foetus as a piece of dunk - something so worthless that it can be thrown into the trash can.
Legally, it is HER decision ALONE to turn this piece of dunk into a baby.
Legally, the prospective father can do NOTHING about this. He might actually WANT the baby. Many men do.
But his feelings about the matter in law count for NOTHING.
Hers count for EVERYTHING.
And if the state is so concerned about child support then it can pump up the money. Why should a man who has already been duped have to be punished again?
Does anyone here seriously believe that if the birth of children was 100% in the control of men, then duped women would be forced to pay up for years on end?
Here's a newsflash: Even women don't have 100% control over reproduction. As much as we would all like someone to have that much control, it just isn't possible. Some birth control methods are very close to 100%, but, for example, some antibiotics can diminish the effectiveness of birth control. If a woman takes a pill every day but takes it at different times of the day (morning on Monday, noon on Tuesday, evening on Wednesday), that can mess with effectiveness. Even with all the best intentions in the world, a woman can make an honest mistake and forget.
The guy on Dr. Phil, to go on this public crusade to gain support in his effort to ignore his child--this makes him a bad person. He isn't arguing a hypothetical case; he is arguing for the right to ignore his child. His own child! How can anyone defend this? If you want to say he got a bad deal and we should make sure it doesn't happen to any other men, fine. Do that.
Hey, I don't even concede the validity of the assumption that a woman has some kind of inherent right to use my personal genetic code for reproduction in the first place.
Why, exactly, should her mere possession of my sperm mean that she is automatically entitled to use it to create a new human life?
"Here's a newsflash: Even women don't have 100% control over reproduction."
Yes they do. Women can have an abortion.
LEGALLY, they have 100% control.
A father's responsibilities to his child or children are not a function of how he's been treated by his girlfriend or wife.
John Salmon said "A father's responsibilities to his child or children are not a function of how he's been treated by his girlfriend or wife."
What if the father cannot get to see his children?
What if the children have another 'father'?
What if the father does not have the means?
And what, exactly, do you mean by 'his' children?
In what sense are they 'his'?
And if a woman stole your sperm and impregnated herself would you still see yourself as responsible for the resulting child simply because it had some of your genes inside it?
And, of course, what do you mean by 'responsibilities'?
And how would you carry out all these 'responsibilities' if, for example, you lived 500 miles away from 'your' child?
Finally, if you want 'fathers' to take their responsibilities seriously then perhaps you should argue for laws that discourage women from having children without the support of the 'father'. At the moment, the opposite is true.
i dont like the idea of abortion, BUT, theres that choice thats needed, if people we given access to all the forms of birth control, the pre conception birth control, then there would be less abortions.
but religious people, think even contracception is somehow bad, so there is no other resort.
NOW, if a woman lies or steals sperm, or whatever, they should be responsible for that action, the man never accepted that role, if it was planned then they are responsible. but to break the law, just to have the "precious child", and to take money from a man, which is what a lot of women in that situation do.
theres stories about, stealing sperm from used condoms, oral sex and use that to impregnate a woman.
basically your saying that women can do everything they can decide they can do everything but always the man will pay, in essence its male slavery.
women and men should control their own reproductive parts, unfortunatly the choice men have in control of their own reproduction, is tiny, women have more choices. its easy to say men should keep it in their pants, or wait till marriage. why not say that to women, if i recall it, it takes 2 to have sex.. a man and a woman.
IF the woman, makes the decision to have a kid, and the man doesnt want one, and she is so obsessed about having one that she in essence rapes the man, reduces him to just a turkey baster, then why should he pay for something he had no choice in.
if a man rapes a woman, and the LAW says you cant have an abortion, that reduces the woman into just a incubator.
both sexes need to use b/c, but i know of a few unscrupulous women, having a kid is an easy option for them, forget about the man, and how they feel.
When you buy a car, you research the make and model, and then carefully review the loan documents before buying. When you buy a house, you send inspectors, title searchers and employ other professionals to make sure everything is in working order and that the house will be a good value for you.
But when it comes to procreation, which is the most important decision of all, many of us willingly choose a partner based on very little common sense. It might be someone you meet in a bar, or on the street. It might be a person who is willing at the time to have sex with you.
Yet, after unprotected sex occurs and the damage is done, people get all righty-wrongy and litigious. The drunk woman with whom you met briefly at a bar is now is satan because she told a lie. Don't get all pious because you don't like the outcome of your less-than-stellar decisions.
In this arena of pregnancy, I know it is tough to swallow, men don't have control of what happens after an egg is fertilized. Most of the male whining on the board has more to do about control than anything else. They don't like the concept of being controlled by another person. Control your pants, control your condom purchases and you won't have to worry about control from women you barely know. If you want kids so badly, find a lady, court her, date her for a few years until you are sure you can trust her, then have all the kids you want. Or, do like Madonna, and adopt. (Although I don't wish to get Helen all atither about Madonna here so hopefully she won't read this far)
I must say, this discussion has gotten pretty heated. It is a very controversial subject and with good reason. Some unfortunate men in our society, like the one on Dr. Phil, are now being treated like women were pre Roe vs. Wade and perhaps further back than that. I don't doubt that women were treated in a similar manner to some of the men in this discussion which is shameful and sexist. It was wrong then to force women to be mothers against their will under the law. It is wrong to do the same today to men.
Apparently, even raising a discussion of men's reproductive rights is more than a majority of people can hear. I guess this is how women felt years ago. It's pathetic.
A girl etc wrote: "Even women don't have 100% control over reproduction. As much as we would all like someone to have that much control, it just isn't possible. Some birth control methods are very close to 100%, but, for example, some antibiotics can diminish the effectiveness of birth control."
Actually, this is not accurate. Abstinence is 100% effective. Well OK, one exception, but statistically insignificant.
I think the problem comes from treating sex like Koolade when it is really pure grain alcohol. "Want some Koolade, have some! Not for the kiddies, because they are too young, but middle schoolers and high schoolers, have some Koolade! Here is a special cup so you don't have an accident."
Instead of "Now watch this stuff you two, it is powerful and can have unintended consequences. If you're not careful drinking this stuff, it could ruin your life. But if you ARE careful, it can make life more fun. Just be careful who you drink it with, be VERY careful."
The sexual revolution was a miserable failure that has left men and women injured and angry with each other. Read the posts, and cry if you want. It is because we have all become Koolade drinkers. Treat sex with respect, it packs a punch, it is even flamable, and it can wreck your life if you use it carelessly.
Trey
jw:
um, what are you talking about? a single man does NOT need a female's permission to get a vasectomy.
helen:
you seem to say neither a man nor a woman should be forced to become a parent if they don't want to. that would be great and would be the case in an ideal world. and we would see this happen very little if men would take up an equal burden in matters of contraception. again, the simple fact is that most men leave this to women. and as i'm sure you know, hormonal contraception which is the most effective is expensive.
however, once BOTH parties have been irresponsible and a child is conceived (and there is a disagreement), ONE OR THE OTHER is going to get to make the decision over the objection of the other. it's unfortunate state of affairs but there is no other way around it. either a woman is going to get to force a man into becoming a parent or choose and abortion over his objection or a man is going to get to force a woman into becoming a parent or force her to have an abortion.
Trey,
Yes--I agree with the abstinence being 100% effective. Should have said that. Also agree with the KoolAid analogy.
I think what Dr. Phil realizes is that women are the weaker sex. Dr. Phil realizes that females need and heavily depend, one way or the other, on men to survive. As anyone who has helped a woman arrange her living room furniture knows, women have a very hard time making up their minds.
Thus they need more choices. A choice whether to go out with a guy or not, a choice to kiss him or not, a choice to engage in heavy petting or not, a choice to have sex with him or not, a choice to insist he use protection or not, a choice to lie about her own use of birth control or not, a choice to have an abortion or not, a choice, if the baby is born, to drop it off at a "safe house" or not, a choice to put it up for adoption or not.
Of course if any of those choices go wrong, it is the duty and responsibility of the stronger sex, men, to come to the rescue, men who are used to fighting wars, men who deal with unfair adversity and long odds, men who stay on the sinking ship to save women and children.
Obviously, men tend to be bigger and stronger than women. A recent study claims that men are smarter than women.
So come on guys, get on the boat with Dr. Phil and help out the weaker sex. And, if the boats begins to sink, remember it's women and children first.
;-)
Having just read through this thread almost in its entirety I am appalled at how utterly selfish many of the women here seem to be.
For example; "When you buy a car, you research the make and model, and then carefully review the loan documents before buying. When you buy a house, you send inspectors, title searchers and employ other professionals ... ..."
Then perhaps we should say the same about women who are date-raped or who end up with violent husbands; i.e. "Tough! You should have checked out the goods beforehand."
He raped you? Tough. You should have checked him out properly beforehand.
He beat you? Tough. You should have checked him out properly beforehand.
The notion that a man should keep his zipper closed or else he is responsible for a child is akin to the notion that a woman should stay at home or she is responsible for anything that happens to her outside it.
Hey Girl with experience, thanks for seeing that my abstinence remark was not a cheap shot. In the discussion, we just leave it out more than we should, so I wanted to give it a mention.
And thanks for being a better speller than I. KoolAID, not Koolade!
Keep posting.
Trey
Dadvocate,
I think you are playing devil's advocate regarding Dr. Phil but you are right--the weak woman is exactly the view this "protector" and enabler of weak irresponsible female behavior has of women. He truly believes that women cannot be held accountable for their behavior or decisions--and that men must always rescue them and be held accountable for their own behavior plus for women's choices as well; it seems this is a popular view as many in this thread feel exactly the same way.
The sexual revolution was a miserable failure that has left men and women injured and angry with each other. Read the posts, and cry if you want. It is because we have all become Koolade drinkers. Treat sex with respect, it packs a punch, it is even flamable, and it can wreck your life if you use it carelessly.
Excellent point. You hit the nail on the head.
I fully agree with Dr. Helen and other commenters that the current system of family law is heavily biased towards women, and that men more often than not are treated as nothing more than "paychecks with pants" by a many women and the court system.
I also agree that in a perfect world, both sexes would be treated equally and with respect by the other. However, in reality there will always be some inequalities because men and women are different (as shocking as that may be to some people).
The point I've tried to make with my comments is that the laws of Men DO NOT -- and CAN NOT -- supercede the laws of Nature. For example, you may have the legal right to step into the crosswalk in front of a speeding semi-truck; after all, if the driver hits you, it's his fault. But it's a stupid thing to do and you'll pay a tremendous price, if you even survive.
Similarly, you may have the legal right as a man to have sex with any female of legal age that you choose, whenever and wherever you wish to. But it's a stupid idea, and you'll likely end up paying for it in heartbreak and/or money.
I'm not only advocating responsiblity for men, either. Women might have the legal right to go to a party with strange men, get drunk, start making out with a man they've just met and then at the moment of penetration yell "stop" and expect him to do it. But it's a stupid thing to do, and if they get raped or pregnant they need to accept some of the responsibility for putting themselves in such a situation in the first place.
That's the bottom line: As much as some people would like it to be otherwise, sex always has consequences. If you don't think so, you're eventually going to get burned, whether it be through unintended pregnancy or emotional trauma or mandated child support payments for the next 18 years.
That's the reason virtually every society on earth has developed "stuffy" rules concerning marriage and sex and procreation. Because people have recognized throughout the centuries that making life is just as significant as taking life, and sexual expression needs to be controlled and directed.
While we as a society have learned to control reproduction, we haven't controlled or eliminated any of the other negative consequences of sex; indeed, we have made them worse by eliminating the concept of personal responsibility. In today's world, you have to protect yourself, because no one else can -- or will.
Anonymous 10:30:
This is a thread about unwanted pregnancy not about date rape which is why I am addressing that particular issue. Trust me, you don't even want to go near my opinion on people who willingly remain in abusive relationships. I have absolutely no sympathy for them either.
I don't understand fo a minute why people enthusiastically jump into marriages or financial dealings with the opposite sex without running a criminal and credit history on them first. A little knowledge goes a long long way.
" I've already called for legislation so that EITHER my husband or myself can gestate our future children."
Heh. Well, I would settle for legislation that gives men and women equal control over their reproduction. Are you down with that?
"What is pathetic is that you encourage the whining. Go back through the comments and weigh the misandric against the misogynistic. The misogynistic far outweigh the misandric. I see no one posting anything about how good it is to take advantage of men, no one recommending that women scrape out the condoms, no one advising women to lie to men in order to get pregnant."
Atticus, what is pathetic is your moral blindness. There has been plenty of defense for that kind of behavior. And you comment about "whining" is reprehensible man-hating crapo. It is a stock- standard ball-cutting tactic. Very transparent. Kind of like telling a 150 lb. woman she needs ot lose 100 lbs.
John Salmon,
"A father's responsibilities to his child or children are not a function of how he's been treated by his girlfriend or wife. "
And neither should his authority over those children, to a presence in their lives, to making decisons about education or medical treatment or place of residence, be a function of how he's been treated by his girlfriend or wife. She should have nothing whatsoever to say about his fatherhood. She wants kids? Fine. She can have them, as long as he can raise them. After, he's the father, not her.
Does that sound too patriarchal for you? Well the obverse is the legal situation in this country, and I don't hear people "hining" abot too much matriarchy.
Hear, Hear captain holly and cham!
I don't think I have ONCE excused the behavior of any woman who purposefully gets pregnant against the wishes of the man. Or women who treat men and fathers like paychecks. (Of course, like most things, just because the guy says that's the case, don't mean it it. Anymore than a woman saying she was abused means she was.)
But what I am saying is that when you make foolish judgments, I'm not terribly interested in hearing your complaints. It's like the doctrine of unclean hands. And yes, I have often (just recently actually) made remarks (very un-PC I'm sure) to the effect that, often, women who are in abusive relationships are making repeated poor judgments that assist their continued abuse. Nothing excuses the behavior of an abuser. But I think it is VERY important for women in those relationships to look DEEPLY into their own behavior, choices and judgments that have resulted in the abuse. Because frankly, that's the best way to ensure it wont happen again.
Ditto for men and women engaging in sex, particularly casual sex, when they don't want a pregnancy.
acksiom said:
"Hey, I don't even concede the validity of the assumption that a woman has some kind of inherent right to use my personal genetic code for reproduction in the first place.
Why, exactly, should her mere possession of my sperm mean that she is automatically entitled to use it to create a new human life?"
Exactly. I mean, just because I ejaculate inside a woman doesn't ipso facto indicate my intent to reproduce. It simply means that I wanted to come in a warm, soft place.
Helen -
You are correct. I am playing the devil's advocate and being satirical. But, as with much humor, there is the grain of truth.
Jack Dumas,
That sounds so rational, it is no wonder she is a former president of NOW.
Captain Holly cannot seem to tell the difference between a law and a circumstance.
Quote 1: "As much as some people would like it to be otherwise, sex always has consequences."
Nope: It does not. Sex does not necesarily lead to a child. It is a woman's DECISIONS that lead to a child.
Quote 2 "you may have the legal right as a man to have sex with any female of legal age that you choose, whenever and wherever you wish to. But it's a stupid idea, and you'll likely end up paying for it in ... money."
ONLY BECAUSE OF THE LAW!
In other words, Captain Holly tacitly admits that the law is unfair, but chooses not to argue for changing it.
In my view, there is NO GOOD reason for the ****LAW**** to make a man pay for the consequences of woman's ****UNILATERAL**** decision.
Anon: 2:23 took Capn Holly to task quoting then saying: "Quote 1: "As much as some people would like it to be otherwise, sex always has consequences."
Nope: It does not. Sex does not necesarily lead to a child. It is a woman's DECISIONS that lead to a child."
First off, sexual encounters have consequences BEYOND AND APART FROM children or std's. I mean come on here. Sex has consequences like orgasms, wet spots, better sleep, and emotional closeness. And those are just some of the (mostly) good ones. Sex has a myriad of possible consequences, that is why it is so complicated.
And a woman's decision is not enough to lead to a child. Women in the world decide to have children everyday, many remain childless. Their decision does not enter into it in these cases. My wife and I decided to have a child and tried till it got a little boring. (Only for awhile.)
Then we sought donor embryos so we could have a child, or MAYBE two. We have triplets! We decided to have one or two. Now we buy things in threes. My sister had the same procedure because she had decided to have one or two. The procedure did not take, and she had none.
Reproduction is as much miracle as decision, now that I type it, it is MORE miracle than decision.
Trey
Yes Trey.
Yawn.
But the issue here is a **western** woman who **decides** to have a child regardless of the man's wishes.
Dr. Phil ruins the credibility of the profession by applying a very dangerous form of "projection" as a legitimate science. He should be stripped of his license for doing so. I encourage all responsible members of the psychological profession to file complaints against him.
Secondly, when a woman lies in order to get pregnant, she should have the last right to custody. The father is the victim. He should have sole choice to raise the child, adopt it out, or allow the woman to raise it.
This is the only responsible way to end illegitacy. I know very few men who intended to impregnate out of wedlock, and thousand of them who were reproductively raped.
David R. Usher
Senior Policy Analyst
True Equality Network
drusher@swbell.net
Angry Harry, wake up! No yawning sleepy head! I was responding to particular statements, the ones I quoted, don't sleep through it.
Vper, disagree on the miracle of conception, agree on the miracle of a good enough family. And I can answer your question, I honestly do not think the missing mom will get it right.
But for lots of people, creating a pregnancy is indeed a miracle. Abortion is a decision in that it is a choice. Honestly, I do not support the right to terminate a pregnancy outside of rape. (Incest is rape, so it does not need to be mentioned separately.) I would be devastated if my offspring were aborted, so I made choices accordingly. Father's rights and men's rights are something I have been interested in since the mid 80s. But one way I took care of myself is I did not sleep with women that I was not willing to parent with and was CAREFUL even when I did. Fair is fair, but personal responsibility is the bomb.
My wife and I were approached with the option of selectively terminating one of our children early in her pregnancy. As terrified as we were of being able to cope with 3 children, we refused. For us, it was our faith. I recently posted pictures of our triplets fourth birthday party on my blog. Check it out, I think you will agree it was a good call on our parts.
Trey
Dr Phil is 50% pro-choice. He believes in choices for women and responsibilities for men. In other words, "a woman's body, a woman's choice, a man's responsibility."
There is a great deal of anger out there. And there should be. We are being manipulated by a legal system that profits immensely off the no fault gender biased child support crusading system of family non-law. It is almost all completely unconstitutional, and federal grand juries could, if they so decided, raise holy hell with numerous indictments for the crimes of violating civil rights, 18 U.S.C. §241, and peonage, 18 U.S.C. §1581.
Just because you made a baby with a man, you have NO RIGHT to make him your slave. NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER.
It is a crime that is allowed only because of the incredible bias in the judicial system due to all of the money to be stolen off of breadwinning fathers, men with normal sex drives, and taxpayers who cannot see they are being ripped off and WHO is responsible for the ripping off.
Even though it is all in plain sight.
Several sources of the imbalance:
One: with the right to abortion nad the privilege of abandoning her new born infant at firestations, women get to make the SECOND decision, men cannot. It is like a football game where one team gets to replay each down if it does not like the results, but the other team must play by the old rules.
Or a better analogy, a chess game where one player gets to make two moves each turn and other only one.
Two: No fault divorce was sold as a way of allowing a couple who MUTUALLY agree to a divorce can have their separation without either party having to prove wrongdoing or other "grounds" for divorce. While that is allowed, what actually happens is that either party can UNILATERALLY impose the divorce, and need not prove the respondent to such divorce EVER DID ANYTHING WRONG to obtain an order for property division, spousal support or alimony, and child support.
That is dispensing with the due process of law and going straight to the deprivation of property.
Not what James Madison had in mind with the Constitutional requirement for due process of law.
Of course, 70 to 90% of all divorces are female initiated. And 99.99% of all paternity filings (by themselves or through the state).
Of course, for the destruction of the good will by which we begin support orders, there is the fact that the way the current system is designed, most men who make less than $60,000 per year will be hit with support orders that leave them with little live on.
Thus the high probability that they will not be able to or willing to comply with them.
And yet a woman who initiated the divorce, or the entitlement princess who had a baby so she can get all the goodies, will find out that she is responsible for her child regardless of any support moneys she receives.
That is when they get mad and demand violations of state constitutions that prohibit imprisonment for debt and the whole gamut of nonsense we call the Child Support Crusade.
Ladies, you are being manipulated into being unAmerican in the worst ways.
What is driving this?
Not honest belief in feminist ideology or in taking down the patriarchy. The judges and lawyers I have been able to speak to, under circumstances where they felt like being honest with me, tell me it is all about the money. They don't believe the feminazi crap. Family practice is the easiest way for a lawyer to make a living. Having to prove wrongdoing or preventing such proof, in either civil or criminal cases, is hard work and risky. Enforcing the judgments or coercing settlements has always been where the money is for lawyers and other agents in this business. Most judges actually have profited off the divorce and family industry themselves, or they do not wish to be a threat to those who do.
That is why we have this insane system instead of rational family and marriage policies.
It is all about the money that can be fleeced off the men and the taxpayers.
FRAUD is a crime/tort. There is no excuse for it.
I know the religious, the repressed, and/or the bitter want to punish people for having sex. But to enable the criminal behavior (fraud) of others is cowardly, immoral, and wrong.
And cut the shit about "whining". It isn't "whining". If some criminal was trying to defraud you of a substantial amount of your net worth you would be doing the same type of "whining". You would be doing the same thing if someone was trying to enslave you.
Hello tmink - "Angry Harry, wake up! No yawning sleepy head! I was responding to particular statements, the ones I quoted, don't sleep through it."
Well, pardon me for speaking!
LOL!
(My apologies to you - I got carried away.)
But I get so f******g angry over this issue.
I find it absolutely unbelievable that MOST women currently believe that it is right and proper for ***THE LAW**** to PUNISH a man so HORRIBLY for a situation that is brought about SOLELY by someone else; in fact, simply because this someone else is a woman.
In what other area of THE LAW are people made to pay such a huge price, LONG TERM, for consequences which arise ENTIRELY from the actions and choices of someone else? - typically, a very selfish someone else.
Indeed, you can see younger women all over the internet discussing 'relationships' and marriage in such a way that it is very obvious that the men are nowadays **totally** dispensable in their eyes.
These women know damn well that they can simply fool some man - preferably a man who is well off - into impregnating them and/or even marrying them and then they can discard him while hanging on to much of his money, his house and the children.
And it is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS that our politicians actually encourage this sort of thing.
And when a woman hoodwinks a man into a pregnancy and against his wishes CHOOSES to bear offspring, she is cheating him horribly - and much more so if the relationship is of short duration.
And what does the law do? It takes her side and it punishes him.
Who took the 'marital' out of premarital sex?
Why do men feel they are being "punished"? Is the opportunity to raise one's own offspring "punishment"? Men can receive full custody if it is proved they are the better parent option, men can receive joint custody or get visitation on the weekends if they so choose. Yet, the men on this board seem much more concerned with having to pay child support to a woman than trying to figure out how to make the best out of a situation they had full control over preventing if they so chose.
I don't see an uproar over who gets to parent and involvement in a child's life. It's more like, "Although I was the one who made the choice to have unprotected sex, why can't I force the mother of my child to abort the baby or raise it on her own so I can wash my hands of the whole unpleasant mess. Personal responsibility applies to everyone but me."
Cham-
I spent 7 or 8 years fighting for shared physical custody of my children. A local attorney told me that my case hold the record for the longest litigation regarding divorce/child custody in our county.
I won every court hearing but my ex continually filed new petitions. Finally she quit when she realized she might end up paying child support and my legal expenses.
I pay more than my share of the children's expenses according to law but it is worth it to me to stay out of court and spend lots of time being a parent.
However, the case under discussion is about a man who was tricked into becomimg a parent through deceit, lies and seduction when he had expressly stated he did not wish to have a child.
cham-
Why do men feel they are being "punished"? Is the opportunity to raise one's own offspring "punishment"? Men can receive full custody if it is proved they are the better parent option, men can receive joint custody or get visitation on the weekends if they so choose. Yet, the men on this board seem much more concerned with having to pay child support to a woman than trying to figure out how to make the best out of a situation they had full control over preventing if they so chose.
Because they are being punished for someone else's selfish, unilateral, and unrealistic choices. When men want to have children they generally want to have them: (a) with a woman they WANT to have children with; (b) with a woman they have chosen and generally want to spend the rest of their lives with; (c) when they feel they are financially, emotionally, situationally, etc. ready for them. When a woman uses fraud, theft, deception, etc. to involuntarily make him a father without his agreement and consent she is harming both the children and him, because she is recklessly choosing to have them outside of favorable conditions and with an unwilling father. So it is she that is harming any children by not waiting for a more favorable situation and a ready and willing father, not him.
Personally, I would try to make the best of a situation like this, but on my terms. I wouldn't allow a woman to unilaterally bleed me because of her recklessness or think that I was at her beck and call. And I'd try to make sure she didn't hurt these already disadvantaged kids even more with her nuttiness.
I don't see an uproar over who gets to parent and involvement in a child's life. It's more like, "Although I was the one who made the choice to have unprotected sex, why can't I force the mother of my child to abort the baby or raise it on her own so I can wash my hands of the whole unpleasant mess. Personal responsibility applies to everyone but me."
Because "personal responsibility" doesn't rest on the victim of a crime/tort. In the hypothetical we are talking about a man took normal, reasonable precautions to avoid getting a woman pregnant and the woman deceptively, fraudulently, and/or criminally bypassed these reasonable precautions intentionally. The "personal responsibility" is hers, because she committed a crime/tort.
In the hypothetical we are talking about the women intentionally created the "unpleasant mess" you are referring to, it didn't happen accidentally.
Cham said "Why do men feel they are being "punished"? Is the opportunity to raise one's own offspring "punishment"? "
What a load of nonsense.
Firstly, THE LAW often prevents men from bringing up their own offspring even when they are desperate to do so.
Secondly, many men might not **WANT** to have offspring - IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT BY YOU.
Indeed, what gives YOU the right as a woman to inflict offspring upon anybody?
What kind of superior being do you think you are?
Thirdly, I trust that you are completely opposed to abortion, and that you believe that women should simply take to term whatever pregnancies come their way.
If not, then your position could not be more selfish and hypocritical, because you would be arguing that it is perfectly all right for a woman to toss into the garbage can the very thing that you - when it suits you - call offspring.
as per my piece, ...
http://www.angryharry.com/esRantAgainsttheCSA.htm
Doctor Phil has a daytime TV show.
Who watches TV in the daytime (more often than not)? Women...Mothers...Housewives.
Dr. Phil is not running a therapy clinic, he is an entertainer. His job is to entertain his target audience, to keep them watching so that the network can make money selling advertising during his show.
OF COURSE he panders to the female perspective. He wouldn't be very popular wiht advertisers if he pissed off the majority of his potential viewer base by siding with the man.
Dr. Phil may be a very capable therapist under the right circumstances but make no mistake, in the venue of the Television show he is nothing more than an entertainer, pure and simple.
As far as the Father's rights in reproduction, I've been saying that for years.
Theres a little phrase in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution...you know...the supreme law of the land. It goes something like this:
"...No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In other words, if a woman has the right to choose, so does a man.
yes harry, i dont want kids, was never really interested in them, if i was to have them i would be a bad father, so thats coloured my choice to be childfree, then the stories about unprincipled women effectively stealing 18 years of money from a man, due to her frauds. thats another reason, then theres medical etc..
marriage isnt about kids, marriage is about love of each other, kids are a side effect in most cases..
do i love less because i dont have a kid, should marriage only exist is you plan to have kids, what about those who cant have them.. are their marriages less.
if someone breaks the law, they should be punished, and from what i see men arent all criminals even though its getting to be like that.
if i had a child by accident, i would be responsible, whether thats giving support to my wife to have it or to abort it. if someone takes my sperm, and uses it without my knowledge or implicit permission, then that is theft, and fraud, they will take 18 years money from me, due to a criminal act the theft of a mans sperm.
in that case the woman who wants it should pay for it, if a man doesnt use protection then that makes him implicit in the act and should pay for it. if a woman doesnt use protection, she should pay.. the same rule, same effects..
but some of the women and a few men here think that men should be made to pay for a criminal act perptrated by a woman. is that fair.. just imagine if it was the other way around, women should pay for a criminal act perpetrated by a man.. there would uproar.
a woman has choice more than men(17), a man has choice as well(3).. why havent they dont more about male contraceptives.. (ours havent really changed in millenia, they used sheaths of lambskin in greek and roman times, abstinence forever, but womans contraceptives the technology gives them MORE choices, why put all the blame onto the man, if the woman doesnt use protection, men should use protection, i am not saying they shouldnt, but why is it always the mans fault.
Sailorcurt,
Yes, Dr. Phil is an entertainer for a bunch of sexist housewives. So what? It doesn't make the show okay or harmless. It is destructive in that the ideas infiltrate these women's lives and give them more of a sense of entitlement than they had before. Dr. Phil is a sellout to his own sex and an enabler of the opposite one, all for a huge salary. This is what is rewarded in our society. That is what I find truly sad.
Thanks Dr Helen for initiating this most interesting discussion.
The underlying inequity in the current standard is highlighted by something mentioned only once among all these comments.
A woman can rape a thirteen year old boy and subsequently force her victim to pay child support. A system that not only enables this but will also enforce it is a sick system indeed.
jw:
Please cite me to the lawthat requires a single man to have a female's permission to get a vasectomy. Or if it is just asking too much for you to back up your completely incredible assertion, then at least cite me to the STATE where this is the law and I will look it up myself and report back to this post.
Thank you.
mercurior said:
"in that case the woman who wants it should pay for it, if a man doesnt use protection then that makes him implicit in the act and should pay for it. if a woman doesnt use protection, she should pay.. the same rule, same effects.."
is that not the case here? did the man on dr. phil's show use protection?
if the man adamantly does NOT want children with THIS woman but insists on having sex with her-- fine. but he's got no business taking such an important risk with a woman he doesn't like or trust enough to have children with. you just wanna get a nut off? great. wear a condom. it's a last chance theory. she may be a conniving bitch. he probably aleady knew that, which is why he didn't want to have children with her. so all the more reason why, if he insisted on having sex with her, he should take responsibility for his ability to prevent and unwanted pregnancy.
NOBODY here is making excuses for this woman's actions, but nobody here should be making excuses for his either.
0If a woman tells me her pitbull is as docile as a little puppy, that it never attacked or bit anyone, and she tells me it is ok to pet him, and she encourages me to pet her pitbull, but then when I do the pitbull bites my hand off, would Dr Phil tell me I should have worn a protective glove before petting the dog?
That because I was not carefull, because I did not wear protection I am to blame for what happened?
And if it turned out the pitbull had bitten other people before and the woman knew about it all along, would Dr Phil still say I am to blame?
If a woman gives me a ride in her car but does not tell me the brakes on her car are totally worned out, and we get into an accident , would Dr Phil tell me I am to blame, that I should have checked the brakes myself before climbing in that car?
I wonder. Did the guy ask her before he ejaculated in her? I mean, just because she wanted to have intercourse doesn't mean she consented to his ejaculating in her? And just because she says she's infertile and on the pill clearly doesn't constitute a consent for him to ejaculate inside her. Hmmm, I wonder. Maybe while he's getting her for fraud, she can charge him with assault.
This is a very inflammatory issue, and it's also an easy one to drive off course by talking about responsability, choice, right to life, and a myriad of other related debates. In my opinion it needs to be framed as an equal protection issue, and people shouldn't allow the debate to be hijacked for any other cause.
The law right now gives women the right to choose to end their parental responabilities at any point from conception beyond birth. In many states a new mother can drop a newborn off and walk away no strings attached... if the stress is too much for her to bear. To say this is patronizing and demeaning to women is obvoius... but in our current culture it's a lot like pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes, a dangerous endeavor.
Men on the other hand have zero post conception control over the process, women have choices, men have responsibilities. The argument that man have the choice not to engage in intercourse is a Red Herring... women also have that choice and we're talking about POST conception. The argument that women have the unique position of being forced to carry the baby so should be granted control is simply a selective view of the facts. If a man worked continually for 24 hours a day, it would take him MORE than 9 months to earn enough to cover the average child support obligation. So much for "my body my choice". Women can't be inconvenienced for 9 months but men can become slave labor for more than that at the whim of another.
Men deserve the same choices post-conception that women have... and that is the choice to end their rights and responsabilities up to some legally defined period. If women don't like it then they should be pushing for an end to abortion, in which case both men and women would be back on an even footing, where EVERYONE is held equally responsible for their stupidity if they get pregnant when they didn't want to.
Hey Angry Harry, it is OK friend! I should have realized that you were just, well, ANGRY! But, I appreciate the recent posts where you outlined more of your thoughts. Peace to you my friend, thanks for the kind answer.
Trey
anonymous 9:40 said "I wonder. Did the guy ask her before he ejaculated in her? I mean, just because she wanted to have intercourse doesn't mean she consented to his ejaculating in her?"
I think that this reveals the extent to which many women will go in order to portray themselves as victims of assault.
He ejaculated without my permission!
But don't laugh folks, because there are millions of women just like Ms Anonymous 9:40. They **REALLY DO** believe that unless a man conforms to their every wish then they have been 'abused'. You see them all the time on these stupid afternoon chat shows that carpet-bomb men here in the UK.
These shows have flooded the western media for more than 20 years and they have **seriously** poisoned the whole landscape of gender relationships - and will do so for many years to come.
anonymous 9:40am-
I wonder. Did the guy ask her before he ejaculated in her? I mean, just because she wanted to have intercourse doesn't mean she consented to his ejaculating in her? And just because she says she's infertile and on the pill clearly doesn't constitute a consent for him to ejaculate inside her. Hmmm, I wonder. Maybe while he's getting her for fraud, she can charge him with assault.
Well they seemed to be in a long term relationship - did she raise the issue the dozens or hundreds of other times they had sex?
Dr. Helen,
Thank you for posting this topic. I have read your blog over the past year with great interest.
Angry Harry is one of the founding fathers of the Men's Rights Movement, whose time has come.
Women are abusing the power which has been given to them, by MEN.
Now, we Men must band together to set things to rights before we have no society left.
Dr. Phil is but a symptom of a greater cultural sickness: Feminism.
Please visit my blog, and unplug from the Fe-Matrix!!
www.mamonaku187.blogspot.com
The FACT remains, that a woman can have a child and walk away from it, no questions asked.
Can a man?
If the right to willfully abandon a child is given to women, why is that same right not given to men?
Some states designate places (hospitals, fire stations, for example) where newborn can be left, no questions asked. This is put in place not so a woman can avoid her responsibility, but to protect the infant. It doesn't happen as often as abortion, but it does happen that newborn babies are abandoned to die. This "safe harbor" provision protects the baby. I don't know how often babies are dropped off.
Why you would consider this a form of birth control, or just another sensible choice women get to make, is beyond me. Why some of you consider abortion just another method of b/c is also beyond me.
anon 10:29:
So, she has to tell him each and every time whether it's ok for him to ejaculate inside of her, but does he have to tell her each and every time they have sex that he doesn't want to have kids right now with her? If not, why not and why the difference?
and i ask you the same question, angryharry.
Anon. 1:04 said -
Some states designate places (hospitals, fire stations, for example) where newborn can be left, no questions asked. This is put in place not so a woman can avoid her responsibility...
sarcasm - Yeah, right. - /sarcasm
(My emphasis)
girlwithcontraceptive experience said "He isn't arguing a hypothetical case; he is arguing for the right to ignore his child. His own child! How can anyone defend this?"
Good question!
However, women have the legal right to abandon newborn babies (from birth up to 30 days old) in nearly all 50 states!!!
If women, why not men?
Providing that right to one group and not the other does not sound anything near equitable to me.
girlwithcontraceptive experience said "He isn't arguing a hypothetical case; he is arguing for the right to ignore his child. His own child! How can anyone defend this?"
This is just fooling around with deceptive words.
In what sense is it 'his' child?
Legally, it does not seem to be 'his' child.
He can be removed from 'his' child at the whim of the woman. The law allows her to leave the country with the child. The law allows the woman to displace him and to replace him with another man. The woman can even flush 'his' child down the toilet in the early stages of pregnancy.
So, in what sense, exactly, does this child actually 'belong to him'?
Well, the truth is that it is not 'his' child at all!
Yes. He is related genetically to the child; but he is also related genetically to many other people, but, surely, this does not mean that he must be held 'responsible' for them simply because of this.
Legally, the child is 'his' - but only in the sense that the law burdens him with financial responsibility for it.
But this is merely a legal ploy, not a moral one.
On a comment board where so many men are peevish because women don't abort their babies or abandon them at the fire station, where men want the freedom to abandon their babies...you want to talk about MORALS?
If the tone of the comments was more about how women have too much freedom to abandon their children and how women should be held as responsible as men are...you guys might actually have me in your court. But that's not the tone at all.
"As for now, the law is an imperfect solution to an imperfect situation. By definition, one or the other party must have their say and the other party's feeling about it will be ignored. So, the only question is, which party is that going to be?"
How about a law that states, "if you do not have 2 willing parents in the waiting, then this child will be put up for adoption. Period."
That would be fair.
Then - if the woman wanted the child, she could adopt it back from the state.
A man visits a woman in her domicile. He puts on a condom and proceeds to have sex with said woman.
Afterwards, the man disposes the used condom in the bathroom trash.
The man leaves.
The woman retrieves condom and proceeds to impregnate herself.
According to the facts of the case, is the man liable for child support?
In the state of Illinois the answer is YES. The court ruled that his sperm was "freely given" property to the woman and she has a right to do what ever she wants with it.
The process of impregnation is ill relevant. His consent is not required.
The DNA proves he is the father. He is on the hook for child support. I believe the Man was a doctor. The case happened about a year ago in Chicago.
Lesson #1, Don't Date psycho women. (Especially overseas)
Lesson #2, don’t have sex with anyone you're not willing to have a kid with.
Lesson #3, Guys, the law is rigged against you, get over it and learn to weigh the risks.
Lesson #4, Sex is better when you're sober. (Really)
Lesson #5, If you’ve got time to watch to Dr. Phil, you’re unemployed and should be out looking for a Job instead of sitting on the couch watching daytime TV :-P
-A Career Enlisted Marine who's seen way too much. (And not just combat.)
girl with contraceptive experience said...
"On a comment board where so many men are peevish because women don't abort their babies or abandon them at the fire station, where men want the freedom to abandon their babies...you want to talk about MORALS?"
Yawn. You are purposely ducking the issue.
We are not really talking about 'babies' when it comes to the possibility of abortion.
We are talking about THE LAW as it relates to a piece of tissue that THE LAW says can be tossed away by the woman into a garbage can.
At this point in time there is - IN LAW - no baby.
This worthless piece of tissue can ONLY be turned into a baby by the woman.
The man - IN LAW - has no say in the matter.
The woman has 100% control - THROUGHOUT.
And yet, if the woman UNILATERALLY decides to turn this worthless piece of tissue into a baby, THE LAW - and YOU! - will say that the man should be responsible for it.
This is nothing less than outrageous.
With regard to the resulting offspring being 'his' child. This is hokum. It is just misusing a possessive pronoun by using it in a sense that was far more appropriate in an age long gone.
Indeed, if it is 'his' child, then a woman who aborts should be tried for murdering 'his' child.
But, of course, most women want it both ways. It's 'his' child when they want his money. It's 'her' child when she wants to deny him custody. And it's a worthless piece of tissue when she wants to abort.
Lesson #3, Guys, the law is rigged against you, get over it and learn to weigh the risks.
Gee, why didn't women just accept that the law was rigged against them and get over it pre Roe v Wade, and pre all the equal opportunity stuff? We're supposed to be living in an egalitarian society with equal protection under the law. Ha! Maybe you should get over that there are those of us who will never accept being second class citizens.
To anonymous 4:02 PM
Item 1, 2 and 4 don't apply to women, right?
Item 3 is simply to bigoted to deserve comment
As for item 5, haven't you ever heard of using a VCR or TIVO to time shift a show?
But, of course, men only behave well when we do what women want us to do and women only behave badly when men make you, right? I'm so sorry that you find it annoying to have to share your species with a bunch of male mammals.
Hello Graham
You said; "Most women?" .. "I don't know about that. I mean, I really don't know. I know a lot of women who, if given a chance to speak without fear in what has become a No Man's (and Woman's) Land, would, to borrow a phrase, or even a tune, "Stand by Their Man." Or any man."
Well. I don't see that going on ANYWHERE in the western world. There are, indeed, isolated groups of women and individuals who do stand by men, but, as someone who has been looking around for MANY years, I can tell you that MOST women and, probably, MOST men, have been well and truly indoctrinated with the views expressed by feminists and their associated allies.
Hi Titurator
I think that you have an EXCELLENT insight. Brilliant! Bravo!
(But I did find it quite hard to read. LOL!)
Why can't I access your blog?
"this misandric psychologist to pander to his female audience"
Well, let's see.
Of course his brand of pandering means income. That specific time slot demographic DEMANDS to be catered to in such a manner and apparently "Dr. Phil" is ready to serve up that kind of entertainment.
Admittedly, while I just don't have time for such things, I hear enough about Dr. Phil to opine that "I have no time for such things".
Is there any kind of disclaimer before, or after, each and every show? Is there something like "Horoscopes are for ENATERTAINMENT only. They are NOT qualified as life instruction"?
To Graham Strouse:
What you know is a lot of women who SAY that they would "stand by their man" if the social sanctions to do so aren't too strong.
One of the most amazing things about about the male choice and (especially) paternity fraud issues is the fact that women (including Ann Landers, Dr. Laura and 3 different female chairpersons of ABA committees on paternity and family matters) are demanding that women be well paid when they lie, then insisting that women should be trusted. The level of female chutzpah is simply amazing.
titurator veritatis:
I'm impressed. But, pray, what is "authentic femininity"? And what is this "natural law" that you say women have abandoned and usurped?
Interesting points Titurator. I have one piece of advice: Paragraphs, use em.
Your posts are dense (in a good way) and paragraphs would help me digest one point before I work on the next.
And I concur with your observations, but I am slightly more optimistic about the possibility of righting the ship of Democracy.
Trey
To Helen:
I reread your original posting and you say that the "correct" response for men is (Surprise, Surprise!) to sit around talking about our feelings, in other words, to behave like women.
Why? The issues aren't difficult to understand. They can probably be stated in less than 2500 words. The big problem is that most women seem to have decided to stonewall men on them.
Men have a number of possible responses to this, some of them extremely unpleasant (think reverse "SCUM Manifesto") but constantly whining about them won't fix anything. Besides that cuts into time better spent watching NFL games or NASCAR races.
Bob H,
I think you are confusing talking about feelings and "whining" with logic, communication skills, discussion and debate. I agree with you that "sitting around whining" is not the answer for men (or for some women, although some women may feel better if they can get their feelings out)but is communication really only a female domain? I don't think so. Who said anything about feelings? What about logic, justice,equal rights etc.? Men discuss politics readily in many settings--how is that whining and sitting around talking? Do you think male politicians should keep their mouths shut because they are men and should be home watching NFL or NASCAR? And if all men do is sit around watching NFL or NASCAR, no men would be out there running the world. Running the world of politics or business takes some ability to communicate, it is the way we change the social milieu. Can all politics be summarized in 2500 words? I doubt it. And if it is, people will quickly forget your points. Sometimes, repetition of ideas is the only way to change the status quo.
girl with contraceptive experience said...
On a comment board where so many men are peevish because women don't abort their babies or abandon them at the fire station, where men want the freedom to abandon their babies...you want to talk about MORALS?"
No, Girl, we are talking about equality and criticizing hypocrisy. Capable of understanding that? Nice try at misrepresentation though.
Atticus,
If you are still here, in answer to your quite valid question:
Anonymous 12:57
Cham 10:05
Anonymous Andrea 9:52
T. veritatus,
I think I had a date with you once. I was the one who jumped from your car at a stoplight.
anonymous 4:02PM-
For a marine you seem very reluctant to fight for your own rights and the rights of others in this situation. Your answer to widespread fraud, corruption, theft, discrimination, rights violations, etc. is to tell yourself and others to "get over it"?
(I am in no way attacking your service to this country, I'm disagreeing with your view and opinion on this issue.)
i was wearing...-
I'm the nice guy that rejected you after a couple dates 6mos later because you were a misandrist, rights-violating dunderhead.
anonymous 2:30--
I guess you're just too quick for me.
Why should I care if somebody like Dr. Melissa thinks that I'm a pathetic loser?
To generalize the question somewhat, why should men aspire to accomplishment if all that it gets them is exploitation by more accomplished and more obnoxious females leeches? Instapundit once posted a link pertaining to this with the comment "Atlas is Shrugging"
Cham,
You bring up a good point, ecept that your take misses the mark.
"In this arena of pregnancy, I know it is tough to swallow, men don't have control of what happens after an egg is fertilized. Most of the male whining on the board has more to do about control than anything else."
Where you are right is that the issue is control; where you are wrong is that you seem to be saying that men should have no right to control their own reproduction. Is this what you really mean? I may be misreading you.
There is the related issue of a woman contolling her own body, but that a related issue, not the same issue. The issue we have been discussing is the right of individuals to control their own reproduction. Do you believe that all individuals have an equal right to control their own reproduction, with the same range of remedies open to them?
if for insatnce believe that a man should be forced to work and pay for 18 years for a child he didn't want, do you also believe that a woman should be forced to bear and raise, for 18 years years a child she didn't want. If for instance a woman is entitled to stop a pregnaancy, is a man equally entitled to stop the pregnancy that will produce his child?
Yo may very well point out that it's the woman's body after all. The answert to that is that reproduction doesn't work that way; nature does not respect legal doctrines or political notions such as individuality or personal dignity. Nature only cares about continuing gentic linreages, not about the transitory manifestations of lineages we call individuals. If we are going to build a society around notions we invent such as individuality - God grant we never stop trying - then we are going to have to do the work that comes with it - defining those individual rights. And if we are serious about it, we are going to have to treat people equally, without resort to the Pussy Pass or to recriminations about "whining" or "not being man enough..."
Dr. Helen,
Thank you for the link. As always, I really appreciate it. I would like to think my view is a tad more nuanced than the passages you quote. For example, here is some of what I said:
IT'S ABOUT THE CHILDREN, PEOPLE! Our society is filled with such selfish, self-absorbed, indulgent adults that all they can think about is their own gratification and getting away with it with no obligation. Call me a prude. I honestly don't give a rat's ass. The consequences of sex have always been children. Sometimes, but not always, contraception works. Our society falls apart at the seams when no one wants to care for the kid.
In addition, I did respond to the commenter you quote (unfortunately, under my husband Steve's name--I didn't realize he was signed in to blogger, so it came up as his comment) and said this:
I completely agree. That scenario happened to a friend of mine, as well. Again, the solution is to outlaw abortion. If this selfish woman had to have the baby, he could have the child he desired.
She would have thought before having sex about the consequences. If she hated her husband that much she would have put her actions in line with her heart. No baby would have been made, right?
Women need to grow up, too. Abortion has resulted in infantile men and women.
My points are these: There have always been manipulative, nasty women and men around. You can't assume that the person you're screwing isn't one of these people when you're not in a committed relationship. (And sometimes even then.)
Sex always runs the risk of 1) a baby and 2) disease, even when protection is used. The man or woman who doesn't want a baby can always masturbate.
Finally, (and my post is long, too--but you can go and yell at me there, if you'd like, after you read the whole thing) the last thing America needs is one more special-interest group whining about their violated rights. This "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" mentality, will create a world even more fractured and divided, if that were possible.
My philosophy is driven by my socially conservative outlook. I believe abortion is wrong. I believe it creates the circumstances we're in today. I know that runs counter your philosophy, Dr. Helen and I respect that. If I were pro-choice, perhaps my point-of-view on the subject would be yours.
And just to mend fences, I whole-heartedly agree with your view on arming security guards. Have a great day!
Men don't make babies; only women have the choice to make a baby. How about: "her body, her choice, her responsibility." Men face the same parental hardships as women when it comes to career, finances, education, and emotional readiness. They should have the same choice to abort (paper abortion), abandon (legally, same as women), or adopt out. Feminists and manginas can blow smoke all they want. What part of “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (14th Amendment) do they not undrstand. Honor your Constitution, or we will do it for you.
"Men don't make babies; only women have the choice to make a baby. How about: "her body, her choice, her responsibility."
You must have learned biology in a literature course. Jane Austin, maybe? Do you think women are delicate flowers, where you can just take cuttings and root them in moist soil?
It may be her body but it is going to be his body that is going to be forced by law to produce the sweat, pain and effort to generate 18 years of sustenance for a baby only she decided to have. If she is allowed to have control over her body, even after a pregnancy has resulted, he should be allowed to have control over his, again even after a pregnancy has resulted.
Anyway, I have already had a preemptive vasectomy, the only sensible solution I could find for the current situation. So there you go, now don't come complaining about low birth rates, having the country swamped by illegal immigrants, childless women or who is going to pay for your pension. Sincerely I do not give a fig...
Sigh. When I think about how hard some people, couples or not, work to have children, it is heartbreaking to see so much rancor about reproductive rights and freedoms.
Same as when I have a case with a single mom with 4 kids from 4 impregnators (father's stay around, impregnators fuck and run,) and all the kids are in state custody for abuse and neglect, and the mom shows up to court pregnant with another abusive man. Shit. It could be depressing.
As a man, I have to watch where I put it. As a woman, you should all watch who you let in. Simple. We need to employ more discretion in our sexual choices. Just because we are free to choose does not mean that every choice is wise or should be supported.
I have never heard a sylable about how to choose who to fuck, and endless dribble about how to fuck. That is backwards and stupid. Books and books about how to not get pregnant or get an abortion if you are, but were is the information concerning WHO to get pregnant with? Abortion has muddied that issue, perhaps beyond clarity. But somewhere, somebody needs to try to address these important concerns and put THAT in public schools too.
Sorry for the cussing if it offends, but cussing is how I feel.
Trey
dr. melissa-
Our society is filled with such selfish, self-absorbed, indulgent adults that all they can think about is their own gratification and getting away with it with no obligation. Call me a prude.
You're worse than a prude, you're a puritan criminal that thinks that people obtaining legal, consensual sexual pleasure should be "punished" for it somehow, to the point where you are willing to enable, excuse, and even encourage crimes committed against these people.
Sometimes, but not always, contraception works
The conversation in this thread was about women intentionally bypassing contraception so that they could defraud.
Our society falls apart at the seams when no one wants to care for the kid.
No, in the context of this discussion society is somewhat disturbed when some women intentionally conceive in less than favorable circumstances and think that they will "punish" men and make them pick up the tab.
In a larger context you seem to be incorrect as well. As I understand it part of the conlict over men's rights is fathers who want more involvement whose efforts are being blocked by vengeful, hateful, controlling women.
Finally, (and my post is long, too--but you can go and yell at me there, if you'd like, after you read the whole thing) the last thing America needs is one more special-interest group whining about their violated rights.
Knock off the infantilizing nonsense about "whining". You would be vocal too if you were being ripped off and having your rights violated. Men are being assaulted using the courts and public opinon, they are going to work to change that. It's self-defense.
So do only security guards have a right to defend themselves and their rights, or do men in general get to defend themselves as well?
Hi Dr. Melissa,
I typically do not go to people's blogs to "yell" at them, that would be rude and uncalled for--we can agree to disagree as we are coming from different viewpoints. I do not like the idea of abortion but I believe it should be legal but I respect that other people feel differently.
That said, women have the choice of when and if, they want to become mothers. Men do not have that choice, not just due to biology but because of man made laws that force them to provide for children they do not want or demands that they remain celibate for the rest of their lives or have a vasectomy. Does that make men "victims"? Not in my eyes. I think consistency in the law is important, not because victims should scream for rights, but because justice demands that we are equal under the law. I know that equality has become a joke but I think true equality of both men and women is important in our legal system. If women have choices, men should have an equal choice, at least the law would then be consistent, not favoring one group over the other.
What I hear you saying is that people should care about children and abortion should be illegal and men and women should step up to support their children or not have sex until they are ready to do so.
Dr. Helen,
I wasn't referring to you yelling at me (though when I read it again, it looks that way), I knew that wouldn't happen:) I was referring to others who would call me names like, let's see, "You're worse than a prude, you're a puritan criminal that thinks that people obtaining legal, consensual sexual pleasure should be "punished" for it somehow". Ha!
I just don't view a child as a punishment. I view a child as a simple cause-effect.
While I know the topic of this conversation is women who willfully deceive a man (which I believe is reprehensible--go read my post), how on earth do you prove that in a court of law? It is a he-said, she-said argument.
For the guy who got a preemptive vasectomy, good for you. No person who doesn't want a child should procreate. Period. There are too many unwanted children to begin with. I think a vasectomy is a very responsible choice.
The plain fact is that life is not fair. For every guy cornered into an unwanted baby, there is a woman who believed a man who said he'd be there for her forever and bailed--no child support, no companionship,no nothing.
As for the vindictive women blocking their husbands, I've seen that, too, and I've seen the converse. Divorce is destruction of the most important societal contract. Again, while the parents use the child as a ping-pong ball, the child suffers. Honestly, I just have a hard time feeling sorry for the adults. The children fare far worse. The selfishness of the feminists and now the meninists is what gets people to this place to begin with.
Like everyone here, I've had friends and family suffer because of the modern notions of justice and fairness and it usually comes down to some dumb-ass Family Court judge who has more power than any person should have. Lives hang in the balance on this person and few of them know what they're doing. And even if they do, the parents tend to become lying, crazy nuts.
I think that Trey is right. No one is given advice about who to "fuck". But a bad decision in this department has grave, long-term consequences for both women and men. In the heat of passion, that sexual-liberation insists we're entitled to, animal drives supersede rational thought, but when we wake up, we have very human consequences.
By the way, like Glenn, I think that all marriages should be straight up contracts, spelled out in detail. People jump through more legal hoops to get a rental card at Blockbuster. But I digress....
Dr. Helen,
This gets me thinking... Perhaps the solution is for men to carry legal release forms like we have at our office. I, Jane Doe, release John Doe from any obligation to parent, financially support or otherwise have contact with any child that could possibly be construed as mine.
I wonder if it'd hold up?
Men do not have that choice, not just due to biology but because of man made laws that force them to provide for children they do not want or demands that they remain celibate for the rest of their lives or have a vasectomy.
Are you implying there are laws that demand a man be celebate or get a vasectomy in some cases? Where?
dr. melissa-
I was referring to others who would call me names like, let's see, "You're worse than a prude, you're a puritan criminal that thinks that people obtaining legal, consensual sexual pleasure should be "punished" for it somehow". Ha!
That's an accurate statement. You seem to disapprove of sex outside of marriage and you enjoy the idea of people being punished or suffering misfortune for it.
I just don't view a child as a punishment.
Neither do I, quit trying to use that as emotionalist manipulation.
While I know the topic of this conversation is women who willfully deceive a man (which I believe is reprehensible--go read my post), how on earth do you prove that in a court of law? It is a he-said, she-said argument.
I don't doubt it is difficult, but there was one case mentioned from Chicago earlier in the thread. (I don't know if it's accurate.) That shouldn't stop anyone - fraud is fraud, and it should be rooted out and punished, not rewarded. The more it is exposed and becomes familiar to the public and the courts, the more likely it will be caught in the future.
The plain fact is that life is not fair. For every guy cornered into an unwanted baby, there is a woman who believed a man who said he'd be there for her forever and bailed--no child support, no companionship,no nothing.
Now your bias is showing - some women have been jilted so men should be made to suffer fraud, theft, rights violations, etc. We should make life for men as unfair as possible.
Honestly, I just have a hard time feeling sorry for the adults. The children fare far worse. The selfishness of the feminists and now the meninists is what gets people to this place to begin with.
And with the kind of fraud that's been discussed here the woman is victimizing the child by conceiving them in an unfavorable situation without the father's agreement and consent.
In the heat of passion, that sexual-liberation insists we're entitled to, animal drives supersede rational thought, but when we wake up, we have very human consequences.
And this betrays your reasoning. You think it is so reprehensible that adults might want to enjoy sex for it's own sake that you want them to suffer some kind of misfortune for it.
Dear Dr melissa:
Thank for your support. Now if you would be so kind as to explain why my choice is very responsible to the many women I find that are extremely shocked when they find out that a 36 year old MBA who is never been married, has no kids, makes a six figure + salary, has a nice house, is reasonably good looking and kind to animals has decided to shoot only blanks I would really appreciate it.
You should see their faces really...
The point is not that I did not want to reproduce is that given the present legal and social situation I feel the only sensible option to retain my dignity and freedom is to refrain not only from reproducing but even from having that capability. Were things different I would have retained my reproductive capacity. What really irks me is that a large segment of the society that has forced this choice upon me, the only choice I had since I cannot count in being able to be celibate forever, then berates me for not contributing to the common good by impregnating a woman and supporting her child.
I have told them that if they feel what we need is more warm bodies to mantain our workforce I will be extremely happy sponsoring an immigrant or two but somehow they dislike the idea...
In summary: Ladies, if you impose this draconian regime upon us expect some of us to drop out of the game completly and do not complain about it. After all there are three viable positions in any market: long,short and out...
Um...I think you're quite safe. No need to defend your choice so vigorously. We're all pretty happy with your decision not to reproduce.
anon 6:37 said:
"The conversation in this thread was about women intentionally bypassing contraception so that they could defraud."
If you want to act like this is the ONLY issue we are to be talking about here--fine. How often does this happen? You all have cited one instance. I submit it's extremely rare. The woman who does such a thing is a conniving bitch. However, the guy had the opportunity to protect himself, which every person should do. Wear a condom, withdraw,etc. What do we do now with this child? The child should not suffer financially or otherwise because he has a conniving bitch for a mother and a father who didn't have enough sense to protect himself. While abortion is the option here, the conniving bitch certainly won't voluntarily do it. And I do not think it's appropriate to force an abortion.
helen said:
"Men do not have that choice, not just due to biology but because of man made laws that force them to provide for children they do not want or demands that they remain celibate for the rest of their lives or have a vasectomy."
Please stop acting like celibacy and vasectomy are the ONLY choices for the guy in question here. All he had to do was wear a condom and/or withdraw.
tiruator veritatis:
I think it's unfair to accuse oligonicella of willfully or stupidly misrepresenting your remarks. I asked you a simple question to clarify your original statements. What do you mean by authentic femininity and what is this natural law that has been usurped by women? And you basically refused to answer the question. You indicated it would take too long but then you proceeded to type alot of words that didn't respond to the question.
anon 10:40:
Yes, I also wanted to commend your choice, not that it's any of my business to even comment on. I certainly can't explain why some women are shocked. But I certainly get some of that too, as a 38 year old childless woman, who by the way LOVES children. I just think it's the most important thing I could ever do and I wont enter into it lightly. Yes, I know it's unfortunate that you feel you have been forced into this situation by the lack of good choices, shall we say. Please understand, however, that there are LOADS of women out there who live essentially celibate lives because it is equally true that we lack good choices as well.
An ANON wrote about Dr. Melissa calling her a puritan criminal. Well, Dr. Melissa copped to perhaps being a prude, or holding views that might seem prudish (don't get a chance to use that word often enough!)For the record, I agree with most of her points, and am also comfortable with being labled a prude. To me, I just SEEM a prude because our culture has lost its bearing on this issue, but no biggie.
But puritans are different. And so are criminals. Disagree with Dr. Melissa, call her a prude, but the puritan criminal comment is over the top and not even entertaining. I bet you can do better!
Trey
tmink-
No, Dr. Melissa expresses a viewpoint that people that have out of wedlock sex deserve to be defrauded, robbed, have their rights violated, etc. One wonders where it would stop - would she just look the other way when a woman was defrauding a man, filing false claims, lying, etc. or would she encourage and help them? After all, it is a good thing when misfortune befalls someone that had sex for its own sake.
After all, some women have been jilted, men should suffer. (Like men haven't been jilted, lied to, cheated on, etc. as well. In some cases they have to fund the raising of the cheater's offspring.)
Religious or moral views are fine, but when you encourage, enable, condone, or even just look the other way when people you don't agree with are being victimized your views have become cowardly, and to an extent criminal.
Anon wrote: "No, Dr. Melissa expresses a viewpoint that people that have out of wedlock sex deserve to be defrauded, robbed, have their rights violated, etc."
My reading of her opinion is that people need to be shrewd and realize that when you lay down with a snake, you are likely to get bit. I know people who are ugly and mean with their morality, and I hate that like you do. But I do not see that in her posts. So we disagree about her stating that people who make bad decisions deserve to be defrauded.
I do agree with most of your last point, that people who delight in other people's suffering have lost my respect and the moral high ground if they ever had it. My understanding of Christianity is that it is about love and forgiveness. My Christian morality concerns me and my behavior, and that is a full time job leaving precious little time to police anyone else. That "Christian leader" in Colorade would have done well to attend to his own life for sure.
In closing we can ask Dr. Melissa if she has or she would take a man's side in a conflict when he has been wronged. Seems silly to write out, because I think I know the answer, but there it is!
Trey
I want to hear more from the people who feel that maybe it would be appropriate to have documents signed regarding potential offspring resulting from sexual contact.
Let's say you have a man and a woman that are interested in intiating a sexual relationship but the man does not want to pay child support or raise children. A verbal agreement immediately prior to sex might never stand up in court with one partner denying the conversation ever happened, unless the statements were recorded. Signatures could probably be forged, documents could be signed when one is inebriated or maybe under duress, so a signed document probably won't do.
The only way a signed agreement could possibly work is if the document signing had a witness like a notary or law office. That way leave a much move convincing legal trail.
The only problem with using the legal process to eliminate obligations from parents is that if the remaining parent who was left to raise the child hit hard times, he/she would lean on the state for financial assistance. The government most likely doesn't want that to happen.
What I am getting at is that this isn't necessarily an issue of fair vs. unfair, but what is in the best interest of the ruling body, the government. The government sees the advantage of having two adults being responsible for the economic welfare of a child, so don't hold your breath that anything is going to change soon.
Exactly cham. Which is why Tennessee courts (and I assume most courts) wont even let a father legally surrender his rights to a child, unless there is a second party taking up the responsibility of that father. I have had several clients call and say that the father of their child wanted to sign a legal surrender of all his rights and the client was willing to let him do that, completely let him off the hook. And I have had to tell them, "Well, no. Unless you have a new husband or someone else that is going to step in and being basically a second responsible party, the courts will not let you do that."
And frankly, it serves ALL of our interest that this is the law.
"This gets me thinking... Perhaps the solution is for men to carry legal release forms like we have at our office."
The fact that you are suggesting this excuses you somewhat, because it at least shows you are debating in good faith. It also shows that you are debating ignorant of the legal and social realities. Such a dicument would have no chance of being recognized as bindiong or valid.
The state is so invested in saddling a man, any man - since after all it is often asking too much to expect a woman to know who the father of her child is - with the legal responsibility for providing for the child, that it will stop at nothing. It is immaterial to the state, any state, how they accomplish this. California is a prime example of this tendency, with their rapacious targeting of men who happen to have the same or simialr name to whoever the mother identifies as the father, and then attachiong the wages even of men who have never resided in California and have never been under its jusisdiction. In Texas a man whose wife spawned three children by some other man divorce her husband after foisting her get off on him as his, and allowing him to feed, clothe and house them for years, which in itself was simple fraud, and then was awarded custody of these children on the grounds that they were hers and not his. It is too much to expect the court to take the children from her on the grounds that she is hardly a fit mother - look at their leniency on a woman who actually drowns five of her children, one after naother - but you would think at least that there would be some provision for the parental rights of a man who was basically the adoptive father of these children. But the point is that states have shown an absoulte disregard for any standard of justice in their extractions.
The underlying assumptions are all deeply misogynist. One assumption is that women are promiscuous and hopelessly dishonest, so that the state will just have to settle for anyone a mother names. Another assumption is that women will forever be unable to provide for their own children on their own. Proof of this is the low rate of child support payments assessed against women, and most states' feeble, feeble efforts at compelling payment compared to their efforts at getting money out of fathers.
The situation conitnues because of both men's and women's entrenched misogynist and patriarchal attuitudes about parenting roles, employment and victimhood.
After the Kobe Bryant (maybe) rape affair, somebody suggested that NBA players should start carrying "agreements" that the woman could sign saying that the sex was consensual.
Whatever the value of that suggestion, somebody else then noted that there were apparently more illegitimate children of active NBA players than there were active NBA players and suggested a second part to this agreement. Since woman are so eager to have sex with these extremely high status males, she should agree to pay him a stud fee equal to 105% of the legally enforceable child support payments that he has to pay to her, if she becomes pregnant and decides to have the child. This would remove the financial incentive for her to try to tap into his cash flow by getting pregnant.
Is it misogynic to note that women seem absolutely intent on being well paid to lie while simultaneously demanding that they be trusted? It doesn't seem to be just a few women either. If women are being insulted, maybe it's because they deserve to be insulted.
anonymous 11:38AM-
I submit it's extremely rare.
I submit its probably much more common than you imagine, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was organized and the methodology for carrying it out has been fine-tuned and passed on to other criminals. They might even have special judges and attorneys that they use. Wouldn't surprise me. There was a case of systemized divorce fraud and corruption out of one of the NYC courts, it wouldn't surprise me if certain groups specialized in paternity rackets in addition to or allied to that.
However, the guy had the opportunity to protect himself, which every person should do. Wear a condom, withdraw,etc.
In the situations we are discussing the man DID take reasonable steps to protect himself, but the woman intentionally and fraudulently bypassed these protections. That's like me locking the door to my room, and a criminal intentionally breaking in.
What do we do now with this child? The child should not suffer financially or otherwise because he has a conniving bitch for a mother and a father who didn't have enough sense to protect himself.
Again, in the hypothetical we are discussing the man did protect himself and the woman intentionally and fraudulently bypassed these protections. I agree that serious attempts to minimize hardship on the children should be taken. But the mother has already shown herself to be at least somewhat irresponsible.
I agree that abortions, adoptions, abandonment, etc. should not be forced, but a woman this deceptive, criminal, and irresponsible should not be controlling the situation. Perhaps leaving the custody decision up to the father and letting him collect support from her would be the proper solution. Perhaps making any support contributed by him to be voluntary. But changes need to occur - these frauds shouldn't have their frauds committed and supported by what are supposed to be legitimate courts.
This wasn't addressed to me but I'll comment:
Please understand, however, that there are LOADS of women out there who live essentially celibate lives because it is equally true that we lack good choices as well.
Well unless you are being physically or physiologically restrained the "lack of choice" really isn't a good excuse. The internet has opened up nearly unlimited opportunities. One has to attempt to screen these, but that would go for someone you met at a social event as well. And I hope you're not making the argument that "a lot of women are celebate so the men should be forced into it as well." I don't think the "some women are suffering somewhere so men have to be made to suffer everywhere" will get you nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. ;)
tmink-
So we disagree about her stating that people who make bad decisions deserve to be defrauded.
The decision is only "bad" in your religious opinion - it is not illegal or dishonest. The problem occurs when one party decides to commit a crime against another - in this case fraud, false claims, etc. And that is a dishonest, illegal, AND immoral act.
So while I find your statements and opinion on those that delight in the suffering of those they don't agree with refreshing, you still seem to be putting people who have sex outside of marriage in a separate box mentally. I truly hope you can disregard that and not encourage or allow people placed in that box to be victimized or have their rights violated simply because they disagree with you on that issue.
Regarding the contracts and such:
Although they would be awkward, they would be good for evidentiary purposes. But to a large extent you are left with the old saw on contracts: If they're honest, you won't need one. If they're dishonest, a contract will hardly matter. (Very loosely paraphrased.)
women have the rights but no responbility, and men have responsbilities and no rights.
is this fair.. NO
is this accurate.. YES
is it right that women like these can do what they wish and a man be punished for acts beyond his control... NO.
Dont men deserve equality, equanimity, with women... YES
do they get it... NO
it is no longer equality, it is make men pay and pay and pay, for the womans actions even if these actions are morally, and legally questionable.
The argument that women use that the mother shouldn't be punished for paternity fraud or involuntary fatherhood, because the child will also suffer has always struck me as very similar to the tactics used by unscrupulous enemy soldiers who hide in civilian neighborhood or even surround themselves with innocent children, knowing that the allied soldiers will be reluctant to cause "collateral damage" by returning enemy fire.
anon 1:25am:
What steps did this man take to protect himself? Relying on her story is not "taking steps to protect himself". That would certainly not be like locking your door and a criminal breaking in. It would be more like leaving a large pile of cash outside your front door and then being surprised that someone took it.
The mother has definitely shown that she is more than a little irresponsible. I think that's an understatement. And if the father actually wants custody--I agree he's got a good argument. It shouldn't be the ONLY consideration. For example, if he's got a serious drug problem, I don't think we should just give him custody over her just because of the shitty way this child was brought into the world. I think all factors should be considered. Obviously though, we're generally talking about situation where the father does not want the child.
And, good lord, of course I wasn't suggesting men deserve the lack of good choices. I was just saying, shit is tough all over, yo.
http://www.jtest28.com/Double_Standards.html
Double Standards: Ever Wonder Why?
May 28, 2003
-> by Thomas Simon
Why is it that women complain when men leave the toilet seat up, but men don’t complain when women leave it down?
Why do women complain about men that only want one thing, but men don’t complain about women that want everything?
Why do women have the choice between abortion, adoption, dropping an unwanted baby off at a hospital, raising the child with a father, or raising the child without a father, but the only choice men have is to agree?
Why do women dress in makeup, short skirts, bare midriffs, and low-cut blouses but complain about men that stare at them?
Why do we pretend that men are the ones that abuse children when it is a well-known fact that women abuse children more than men?
If single mothers have it so bad, why do women initiate about eighty percent of divorces and routinely commit perjury to win custody?
Why do we have a Violence Against Women Act but nothing for men when women cause domestic violence just as often as men?
Why is it funny when a woman kicks a man in the groin but terrible if a man did the same to a woman - won't the man be in more pain?
Why is it terrible for a woman to be raped once but funny when male prisoners get raped over and over?
Why is a man a wimp if he lets his wife beat up on him but a criminal if he defends himself?
Why does women’s health get much more attention when men die about seven years younger than women?
Why do we complain about legislators being mostly male when they always promote women’s rights and never promote men’s rights?
Why is it sexist to have clubs for only men but empowering to have them for only women?
If women only make 72 cents for the same work where a man earns a dollar, why don’t companies hire only women and put the competition out of business?
How do police know who to arrest when there is a domestic disturbance involving lesbians?
Why do married women complain that their husbands don’t want to change a baby’s diaper but divorced women say their ex-husbands can’t take care of a child?
Why do men that don’t pay child support go to prison but nothing ever happens to women that don’t allow visitation?
If women-in-the-military is such a good thing, why don’t they have to register for the draft?
Why are we so concerned about girls under-performing boys in math and science but not concerned about boys under-performing girls in everything else?
Why do fathers have to pay the mother to take his children away from him in divorce?
Why is it legal for women to lie to men about who the father of a baby is to get child support, but a crime if she tells the same lie to the government to get Social Security or military benefits?
Why do women have to prove they spent the money on the children when they collect welfare but don’t have to do the same when they collect child support?
Why do we have to cut men’s sports that have fans to create women’s sports that don’t?
Why do women tennis players win the same prize money as men when they only play three sets and men play five - isn't that equal pay for less work?
Why is it called sexual freedom when a married woman commits adultery but called cheating when a man does the same?
Why are female murderers presumed to be mentally ill but male murderers presumed to be killers?
Why are there thousands of “father’s rights” groups but no “mother’s rights” groups?
Why do we have so many fathers groups fighting for more time with their children when there are so many social problems attributed to fatherlessness?
Why do men have to support women at the same standard of living following divorce when women don’t even have to cook and clean his new apartment?
If divorced women have it worse than divorced men, why do divorced men commit suicide eight or ten times as much as divorced women?
Why do we pretend that men walk out on their wives and children when women initiate about eighty percent of divorces?
Why is it considered sexist to have a couple of television shows geared towards men when there are several channels catering only to women?
Why are television moms always portrayed as wonderful and loving and television dads always portrayed as inept buffoons?
Why is it politically incorrect to say anything negative about women but funny to put men down?
Why are women without a job considered to be exercising free choice but men without a job considered a bum?
Why do feminists demand that women be equally represented in high paying and powerful jobs but don’t complain when low-paying, dirty, and dangerous jobs remain mostly done by men?
Why do we have to say “Chairperson” and “Congressperson” but its ok to say “garbage man” and “bad guy”?
Why do we always hear the phrase “innocent women and children” but never hear about “innocent men” or “men and children”?
Why do news headlines use the terms “student”, “spouse”, or “parent” when a girl or woman, or mother does something wrong but use the terms “boy”, “husband”, or “father” when a boy, man, or father does something wrong?
Why do feminists demand equal results for traditionally male roles but object to equal or shared parenting after divorce?
Why does the term “angry mother” sound like someone that needs our help and support and the term “angry father” sound like someone that needs to be arrested and forced into anger management classes?
Why is it that when men are more successful than women it's because women are oppressed, but when women are more successful than men it's because men are lazy?
Why are only women free to criticize other women without being labeled anti-women, but both men and women are free to criticize men?
Why are feminists pushing for laws that prevent new laws from being passed that protect men from women, such as with domestic violence against men, false allegations by women, or paternity fraud?
Why is it that when a woman accuses a man of rape, the man's name is made public and he is presumed guilty, but when he is proven innocent the woman remains anonymous and the man is still ruined?
Why is it considered woman-hating or whining to point it out when women have something better than men, but we rush to pass new laws if men might have something better than women?
Why is it that we've had forty years and billions of dollars going into women's rights and men's responsibilities, but it's taboo in most circles to even suggest that maybe it's time to consider men's rights and women's responsibilities a little bit for a change?
If those who always side with women are feminists and those who always side with men are chauvinists, why don't we have a wing of a political party and billions in funding going to chauvinists when we have that for feminists?
For those who believe men had it better than women in the past and believe now it's time for women to have it better than men for a while, why don't they advocate whites being forced into slavery to blacks?
Why are men considered more privileged than women with so many double standards against men?
Thomas Simon
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/s-misc/simon052803.htm
by AnubisRox
Hello all. I've been reading the posts in this forum for some time and have agreed (and sometimes disagreed) with the opinions put forward. I personally hate women not for what they ARE but what they have DONE! I've decided to put down my points of what I hate. I'm not trying to generalize but make observations. You're free to disagree and/or to add to these points. Its how I let off some steam before I have to go and endure the outside world and apologize about my shortcomings as a straight mixed-race male.
If men are afraid of commitment, then why are over 90% of marriage proposals made by men and over 75% of divorces filed by women?
Men are judged by how much they have to offer, women are judged on how much they can take.
Male sexuality is portrayed as something that's vile and repugnant.
Women who depend on men for their well-being (the golddigger type) have bad attitudes toward men because they feel you have to be able to "afford" her for her to respect you, and most of the time even THAT doesn't happen. But, on the other hand, women who do make a living for themselves have bad attitudes toward men because they feel they don't need anything from us.
Why can women "expect" things from men, but men have to "deserve" things from women?
The next time you see a girl looking sexy and seductive, and you think you've found the bomb, consider this:
* She's already with somebody and has no time for you.
* Shoot, she may be a lesbian and would rather hit you over the head with a beer bottle.
* She's just trying to see how many men will come up to her because she has a bet going with her girlfriend(s).
* She had a bad experience with another guy she may or may not have known, but now she's going to hold every man responsible for the misbehaving of that one.
* It's a Womens Studies experiment.
* Women feel that if they're not interested in you they don't have to be nice about it. In fact, she may have been looking forward to this and may try to rip you a new one. And what are you going to do about it?
* She may just want to use you (for money, making someone jealous, relieving boredom, etc). She doesn't look all that great NOW, does she?
When the hell did fat girls become Big Beautiful Women??!!
How can any woman feel they're too beautiful to get dates?! If you're that pretty you shouldn't have any problem asking a guy out, should ya?!
Today's women have no problem with the old-fashioned ways, as long as it's convenient for THEM.
Men who can cook and clean are considered great finds for women, funny enough these are the same women who are too independent to do these things for themselves.
Also, if cooking is "demeaning women’s work" the why are most of the world's best chefs men? Straight men I might add.
Women’s arrogance is seen as confidence. Men’s confidence is seen as arrogance.
Do you honestly think a sexually active guy is going to forget to take his birth control pill if there was one?!! WAKE UP!!!
Lesbianism is a socio-political statement rather than a lifestyle.
Women want the world to think that all men think about is sex. It makes women feel important and they don't have to respect male sexuality.
If a woman rejects a man, the man must have been lacking. If a man rejects a woman, he's gay.
If PMS can acquit a wife of murder, why can't testosterone acquit a man of rape?
How many times have you heard women say "be a man" or "he's not a real man"? You know that if a guy says "that's not how a lady should act" he'll be lucky to see tomorrow. Also, ever notice that "being a man" always means qualities that mostly benefit women?
If women want chivalry, they'll have to accept the lower status that comes with the territory. Chivalry was created with the thought in mind that women are helpless creatures that can't do anything on their own.
Want to talk about equal rights, ladies? Fine, meet with me after you sign up for Selective Service.
When did ONE or SOME men become ALL men?
Tired of women complaining about there being no good men? Maybe THEY should ask guys out for a change. And, yes, BEFORE Sadie Hawkins' Day!
Most women would rather kick a guy than kiss him.
A lot of songs you hear on the radio these days are about guys loving a girl and girls hating guys.
There are all of these girls' self esteem programs in America yet boys are going around shooting up their schools and successfully committing suicide more than 4x the rate of girls.
Women get arrogant when they have the advantage and get bitter when they don’t.
You mean there STILL is no cure for male pattern baldness?!! And don't give me that Rogaine crap! Do you know how many exceptions there are?!
How is a woman hitting a man a sit-com but a man hitting a woman a drama?
Women can only be seen as victims, not failures. Men are only seen as failures, not victims.
Comments?
anonymous 10:10PM-
What steps did this man take to protect himself? Relying on her story is not "taking steps to protect himself". That would certainly not be like locking your door and a criminal breaking in. It would be more like leaving a large pile of cash outside your front door and then being surprised that someone took it.
Using a condom. And yes, it is like a locked door. And taking the contents of a used one and intentionally inseminating oneself with it is certainly like breaking into a locked room and stealing something.
It isn't like leaving a pile of money and hoping no one steals it - you are taking measures to insure someone does not have access to your property. You said yourself that you could barely believe someone would do something like this in the first place. So in the hypothetical we're discussing the man took normal, reasonable precautions and was blindsided by how sinister, dishonest, and morally bankrupt the woman was.
The mother has definitely shown that she is more than a little irresponsible. I think that's an understatement. And if the father actually wants custody--I agree he's got a good argument. It shouldn't be the ONLY consideration. For example, if he's got a serious drug problem, I don't think we should just give him custody over her just because of the shitty way this child was brought into the world. I think all factors should be considered. Obviously though, we're generally talking about situation where the father does not want the child.
Obviously there should be some weighting, you're not going to give the kid to Charles Manson. It all depends on the situation. But the father in this type of situation should have more of a say than the criminal mother. Maybe sort of a "right of first refusal" on custody, within bounds, and compulsory support from the mother. And possibly only voluntary support from him if he decides to cede custody to the mother and only require visitation. Maybe with some means testing.
I have a comment. I've read Warren Farrell. I've had my heart broken by heartless wenches. One thing I've learned is that women don't like men with broken wings. If you can't ignore or surmount women's crap, leave them alone. Arguing with women about their privileges does not get them hot. If you weren't still trying so desperately to get women to pay attention to you, you wouldn't spend so much time cataloging their faults. Or saving them all to a text file to paste to web sites.
Even Quasimodo got a hot girl. Girls are easy, unless you have a problem that you need to deal with.
Whatever happened to "real men don't whine?"
I married at age 19 and agreed with my wife that we wouldn't have a child for at least 5 years. She dropped out of college in her first semester because trigonometry was too hard, and then got pregnant the next year, accidentally. It wasn't till a year after we got divorced in the mid-90's that she admitted she flushed her pills. Her justification: "Well you weren't doing anything important with your life."
The only reason paternity is still an issue is because men are still stupid.
We need nothing from the law or the culture. We are men. If we don't act like it, we deserve what happens.
Anon 1:41 wrote: "The decision is only "bad" in your religious opinion." Well, not exactly. Non-married sex can be wrong for lots of practical reasons. The Dr. Phil show demonstrating one example. Also, without enough time to get to know what kind of person we are wanting to get busy with, we can get busy with a psycho and regret it for the rest of our lives. Then there is the whole STD and Aids thing.
The last part of your post is sad but valid. The validity of your fears that I would treat someone who had extramarital sex poorly is likely based on all the mean, judgmental people who identify themselves as Christians. People who are paying attention, like you, would expect us all to act that way.
I wish that I could say with a straight face that this attitude is a result of a vast left wing conspiracy. But it is the result of years of nasty attitudes from people like me.
Straight up, I am in no place to judge anyone on anything. I have enough to feel guilty about in my own life, more than enough! I was meaning to talk about the practice and idea of extramarital sex, not people who engage in it. I made that choice as well, more than once. So I am not ragging on anyone, I am in no position to do so and that is not how I feel about people. If it came across that way, I am embarassed and appologize.
My intent was to write about ideas and choices, good, bad, and indifferent. And to express my opinion about the choices, not the people who make them.
Thanks for taking the time to think things through with me. Peace.
Trey
I have a comment. I've read Warren Farrell. I've had my heart broken by heartless wenches. One thing I've learned is that women don't like men with broken wings. If you can't ignore or surmount women's crap, leave them alone. Arguing with women about their privileges does not get them hot. If you weren't still trying so desperately to get women to pay attention to you, you wouldn't spend so much time cataloging their faults. Or saving them all to a text file to paste to web sites.
Attracting women is not the issue, the criminal behavior of some of them is. If you want to be a coward and not push for your rights and the rights of others, fine. I'm not going to be a second-class citizen in my own country.
Whatever happened to "real men don't whine?"
Personally, I'm not "whining." I'll let you know when I start.
The only reason paternity is still an issue is because men are still stupid.
We need nothing from the law or the culture. We are men. If we don't act like it, we deserve what happens.
Bullshit. Yeah, some paternity accidents happen and when they do the people involved are responsible. This responsibility shifts when a woman is dishonest and/or criminal. A vagina isn't a free ticket to being a criminal piece of shit.
There's nothing "unmanly" about making a woman answer for lies and/or crimes.
And you're right, we don't "need" fair treatment from the law and the culture because its a RIGHT. No one decides whether you "need" a right, that's what makes it a right. We DEMAND fair treatment from the law and culture.
You can be a second-class citizen talking about manhood all you want. I'm going to make damn sure I'm not treated like a second-class citizen.
Well, not exactly. Non-married sex can be wrong for lots of practical reasons. The Dr. Phil show demonstrating one example. Also, without enough time to get to know what kind of person we are wanting to get busy with, we can get busy with a psycho and regret it for the rest of our lives. Then there is the whole STD and Aids thing.
Well, those are concerns for any kind of sex, even married sex. Although you are somewhat safer, married people still do cheat. As far as psychos are concerned - yeah, that can happen. But that could happen in a married relationship too - people have married psychos before. You could even run into a psycho in a fender-bender.
But that doesn't mean criminal or dishonest women should be given a free pass.
Here is the best exerpt of the best post from all the comments:
"I have a comment. I've read Warren Farrell. I've had my heart broken by heartless wenches. One thing I've learned is that women don't like men with broken wings. If you can't ignore or surmount women's crap, leave them alone."
It took 210 posts for someone to state the obvious easiest solution. If you don't like women, stay away. You don't have to have sex, you don't have to wear a condom, you don't have to whine about the judicial system, you don't have to complain about what you perceive to be fair or unfair. Stay away from the opposite sex and the problems of parenthood, custody, accusations and child support payments go away.
Of course, someone here is probably going to point out men's sexual urges and their biological necessity to procreate but I think you should all get over it.
Cham,
I am really not sure why you frequent this blog. It seems that most people here, myself included, antogonize you. Why not go to Feministing or some other "feminist" blog where you can chat with others about how men should have no sexual urges and should be punished if they do. You are asking straight men with sexual urges to do something that in my opinion, is ridiculous and unnatural. Do you stay away from all men so as to avoid any problems?
cham-
If you don't like women, stay away.
I didn't say that. I implied I had a problem with dishonest, criminal, misandrist, etc. women. I'm sure there are some women that are very nice, who are honest, who believe in gender equity, etc.
I also have a problem with people getting away with fraud, legal corruption, etc.
you don't have to whine about the judicial system
Hmmm - I don't think you would call it "whining" when women wanted to vote and not be treated like chattel property. Now, when men don't want to be treated like second-class citizens you call it "whining." It's not.
Protest, complaint, agitation, vocalization, etc. are relatively healthy and peaceful ways of ending injustice. I don't think you want to see the unhealthy ways.
Of course, someone here is probably going to point out men's sexual urges and their biological necessity to procreate but I think you should all get over it.
Is that what we should have told women when they wanted to vote and not be treated like chattel property - "get over it"? You know the current system has some major problems and you know they need to be addressed.
anon 12:18:
I believe you are mistaken about the facts in the subject case that started this conversation. I believe what happened is he says she told him she was both infertile AND on the pill (which doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a story). Somebody in the comments did raise an issue about women impregnating themselves with discarded condoms, but that was not the subject of helen's post and I don't believe anyone has given an actual link to such an event. I do think THAT hypothetical is extremely rare and would be happy to see a link to news stories about that.
Anon 11:39:
"Women who depend on men for their well-being (the golddigger type) have bad attitudes toward men because they feel you have to be able to "afford" her for her to respect you, and most of the time even THAT doesn't happen. But, on the other hand, women who do make a living for themselves have bad attitudes toward men because they feel they don't need anything from us."
So, you want us to "need" you for something but not "depend" on you? I'm so confused. Seriously, this confuses me. Men complain about paying for everything or wives who don't work. But I work, make good money, and pay for most outings with my boyfriend. But you're right. I don't need a man for anything. Well, except for sex. And somehow, now, that's a problem too? I don't get it. It doesn't mean I don't like men. I love 'em. But I don't NEED them and I won't put up with bullshit just to keep one around. I want an equal partner, someone who will do as much for me as I do for them. I don't expect to go out and work all day, then have to do all the cooking, cleaning, nurturing and child-rearing. Is that so wrong?
"Do you honestly think a sexually active guy is going to forget to take his birth control pill if there was one?!! WAKE UP!!!"
Yes, that's what I think. But I look forward to the time when men have an opportunity to prove me wrong on this. But if you're so sure that men will be responsible and act in their own interests in this way, um, why don't they just wear a condom, withdraw, and/or not have sex with screwy women they don't know that well?
I believe you are mistaken about the facts in the subject case that started this conversation. I believe what happened is he says she told him she was both infertile AND on the pill (which doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a story). Somebody in the comments did raise an issue about women impregnating themselves with discarded condoms, but that was not the subject of helen's post and I don't believe anyone has given an actual link to such an event. I do think THAT hypothetical is extremely rare and would be happy to see a link to news stories about that.
Another hypothetical was dicussed later on in the thread. There weren't a lot of facts about the situation that started the thread, its somewhat unclear whether the woman in that situation intentionally got pregnant.
A real-world case was mentioned from Chicago, I can't verify that one. I don't think you would be able to turn up examples with a conventional google search.
How often does the "oops-with-a-convenient she-happy ending" occur? Applicable answer: Often enough these days that guys must in the very least wear a condom, AND pull-out, never to be talked into sex without one, unless of course you're ready to be a father and trust her health, but that's assuming she'd allow you your child. Flush that condom? That's likely taking it too far, but it couldn't hurt since it's being discarded anyway. Oh, and if she questions such a practice, tell her it's OK because you're weird.
I'd reckon few people can say that they haven't heard of at least one such pregnancy from personal account. In this age of moral decay, conscientious guys are forced to assume the worse. Here is a way to put this in perspective. With rape and potential health problems set aside, if millions upon millions of women, (or is it in the billions now),, can somehow rationalize taking a human life, simply because -she doesn't want it!-, wouldn't the number of "oops but good for mama" life GIVING occur just as often or probably more than the killing? If killing isn't understood as wrong, how can pulling one over on the man be? If a woman wants it killed but the man doesn't, what % of the time will she actually have the child? She's told that since she does indeed have a vagina, that she is right to do whatever she wants, entitled to everything, so why wouldn't she? Surely an emphatic "guess what...I'm pregnant!" with that tear-watered happiness would not be difficult in the least, a real walk in the park. Or should I say: an especially gratifying walk for her, in her own park. How can she, when the time comes for her to accidentally allow the oops, really consider any modern day just-a-man, when she thinks that she's the moral fiber itself?
ok, the withdrawal method isnt a method at all, the pre ejacualate can contain sperm, and can cause pregnancy.
its like the rhythm method of birth control..
there are only 3 real options for men, condoms (97% effective), abstaining (100%effective), and vasectomies.(99.9% effective).
now lets look at womens choices
the pill, Depo-Provera, norplant, Emergency Contraception Pills (ECP), Spermicides, Sterilization, IUD, NuvaRing, The Birth Control Patch (Ortho Evra), Diaphragm Condoms, the Sponge, Cervical Cap, Cervical Shield, Vaginal Contraceptive Film. plus abstinence. (i wont even dignify this with Rhythm Method,)
so why is it the MANS duty, when theres so many more female options.
because of the selfish, women who want kids at any cost, its fraud if a woman says she uses contraception but doesnt, just to get something (the man is partly to blame too in the story he should have protected himself as well) a lying woman will do anything to get that "precious" wallet.
men be aware of selfish, manipulative witches, and act accordingly, better to act as if all women are like that than spend 18 to 21 years paying for a 3 second act.
First of all, mercurior, I think you're "fudging the numbers". Vaginal contraceptive film IS spermicide. It's just that you can get it in a foam or a suppository or a film. I don't think you get to count that as different methods. Similarly, the pill, Nuvaring, dep-provera and the patch are all hormonal contraceptives. It's all a combination of estrogen and/or progesterone. Again, different formats, same method.
But it doesn't matter how many methods there are for women. That doesn't make it a woman's responsibility and a woman's responsibility only. Certainly, I think companies don't make as many methods for men because they know that men are not apt to use them. But as long as there is one reasonably inexpensive and effective methods (condoms) men have an EQUAL responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancy and disease. I know you all are really hip to that whole equality thing.
And I understand withdrawal is not very effective. I only suggest it in combination with condoms to increase the already very high efficacy of condoms. But if wearing a condom is just to big a burden for you to bear, even though you're adamant about not having children, I would say withdrawing is the absolute LEAST you could do. It might help a little.
P.S. If you're really interested in options for male contraception, which I suspect you're not, then by all means, start a movement. I will stand by you. I know I personally am tired of taking chemicals with all the side effects and paying $40 month. I wouldn't mind the other party taking up the yoke.
oligonicella:
Of course.
But oligonicella, please tell me what state your daughter lives in so I can check this law out. Thanks.
To anonymous 7:57
Your posting can be paraphrased in a simple sentence: Women should have options, men should have obligations.
Right?
bobh:
Um, no. But thanks for playing.
Notice my use of the words "doesn't make it... a woman's responsibility only." Which reflects to the literate that it is my opinion that BOTH parties to a sexual encounter have EQUAL responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancy and transmission of disease. An unwanted pregnancy doesn't happen when ONE person fucks up. (No pun intended. Well, maybe a little.) It happens when BOTH a man and a woman fuck up.
Post a Comment
<< Home