"Getting pregnant accidentally on purpose."
A reader emails this article from the Daily Mail about a book, Accidentally on Purpose: A One-Night Stand, My Unplanned Parenthood, and Loving the Best Mistake I Ever Made.
I love the way the author of the article blames men for women's manipulation and irresponsibility:
Sorry, but if a woman plans a "Gotcha pregnancy"--shouldn't she get hit with the "Gotcha child support?" She took the responsiblity to do this, now she should pay for it. And don't give me the baloney about men being involved in the sex and therefore responsible. Men have few or no reproductive rights and were lied to about the birth control. Even if he used a condom and "took responsibility for birth control," a manipulative woman could get the condom out of the trash. I would hope that the man would feel that his child deserved to know him and to be treated well, but that should be his choice, not the state's decision.
The author - single, 39-year-old Mary Pols - got pregnant as a result of unprotected sex on an ill-advised one-night stand, and the book is all about her emotional journey to single mumdom, not to mention her heroic attempts to forge some sort of relationship with the stranger who fathered her child.
In the book, she asks herself whether she conceived 'accidentally on purpose'. The sex in question, she insists, was purely for pleasure. But was there a secret agenda at work?
She was, after all, like the rest of us maturing singletons, in the last-chance saloon as far as her fertility was concerned. True love, marriage and all that was passing her by...
Some of these women approach the task in a far more ruthless manner than Mary Pols did, purposefully going out and sleeping with men when they know they are at their most fertile.
In America, they even have a name for this - they call them 'gotcha' pregnancies. Many of the women involved deliberately avoid birth control and have no intention of letting their unwitting bedfellow know this. ...
I love the way the author of the article blames men for women's manipulation and irresponsibility:
But, seriously, if a man takes a risk like that, he has to face the consequences. The woman, meanwhile, needs to make sure she has unprotected sex with the right kind of man.
Sorry, but if a woman plans a "Gotcha pregnancy"--shouldn't she get hit with the "Gotcha child support?" She took the responsiblity to do this, now she should pay for it. And don't give me the baloney about men being involved in the sex and therefore responsible. Men have few or no reproductive rights and were lied to about the birth control. Even if he used a condom and "took responsibility for birth control," a manipulative woman could get the condom out of the trash. I would hope that the man would feel that his child deserved to know him and to be treated well, but that should be his choice, not the state's decision.
posted by Helen at 8:45 AM
81 Comments:
Many of the women involved deliberately avoid birth control and have no intention of letting their unwitting bedfellow know this.
This is why I urge all my fellow men, be you 14 or 80, to place control of your own reproductive future in your own hands.
a manipulative woman could get the condom out of the trash
Indeed. This is why the man should flush the condom down the toilet...
Many men aren't aware that there is an ABSOLUTE responsibility for child support if DNA shows that your sperm impregnated the woman. It doesn't matter if the woman statutorily raped a boy (young boys have been ordered to pay minimal amounts that the parents usually pay, but at 18 that goes up), it doesn't matter if the woman uses sperm from a blow job or other ways of getting the guy to ejaculate, it doesn't matter if the woman got the sperm out of a used condom.
And here's a case to ponder:
S.F. v. Alabama ex rel. T.M., 695 So. 2d 1186 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996).
A guy went to a party at a woman's house. He drank too much and passed out. His brother put him into a bed. Several people testified in the court case that the guy had, in fact, passed out.
In the morning, he woke up with only his shirt on. Two months after the party, a woman who was at the party bragged that she had intended to go to a sperm bank to get pregnant, but he "saved her a trip". She apparently had sex with him while he was passed out. A doctor testified that it was possible, because erection and ejaculation are involuntary body functions. The man had no memory of it, and certainly didn't intend to have sex.
The mother then gave birth and (on top of everything else) sued him for child support. She won.
The guy not only had to pay child support, he had to pay arrears of around $9000 (and he was apparently not a big earner), put her on his medical insurance and pay half of the bills that weren't covered by insurance.
--- Think about how society would have treated the woman the other way around. That would have definitely been rape.
I'll take a stronger position that IRADA with the following questions:
- If you're not willing to take the potential emotional, medical (STD), or paternal consequences of your dalliance, what are you doing with woman in the second place?
- If she's not your wife, what are you doing with her in the first place?
Manhood is more than stand-up urination and upper body strength. Step up to the plate.
So what do we do with men who don't "step up to the plate" - who have sex with a woman who is not their wife?
Why not just kill them? Or shackle them so they can just work for the woman.
I get kind of tired of the moralizing, shaming RealMen here; society's response to (what you perceive as) a transgression should be proportionate and fair.
1) Putting the entire burden on men is not a proportionate or fair response.
2) I personally think that men have a right to have sex without being marred and I don't see anything wrong with it from a moral point of view (just from a legal point of view - men have to know they can get trapped).
It's people like Smitty1e who are putting through these crappy laws against men.
Spend some of your time moralizing and preaching at women as well, Smitty1e, they're people too. You don't dare criticize women apparently.
Sorry, I meant "married" above, not my Freudian slip "marred" (or maybe I meant marred by marriage).
Thoughts on reality checks seem to be a theme today.
Here's something else I don't get:
A number of good-earning men have been ordered to pay $30,000 per month or more for 1 child, in some cases the woman "stole his sperm" (as in the case of Boris Becker). Puff Diddy (or whatever his name is now) and Daryl Strawberry were recently in the news for that, but there are many others.
$30,000 per month TAX FREE is no longer child support. Mommy won the jackpot and was REWARDED for getting a rich guy to sleep with her and in some cases for being manipulative and stealing his sperm.
You would have to earn more than $600,000 per year (taxable) to generate the equivalent of $30,000 per month tax free.
Why?
Why is that rewarded? Those amounts have NOTHING to do with buying Pampers and Gerber Strained Peas for the child.
So what do we do with men who don't "step up to the plate" - who have sex with a woman who is not their wife?
Why not just kill them? Or shackle them so they can just work for the woman.
The aforementioned issues aside, the fact remains that nothing short of fraud or someone putting drugs in his drink will get a man in trouble with loose women if he keeps it in his pants and holds his liquor.
It's imperative today that fathers teach their sons to be responsible, and not keep company with drunks, drug addicts and loose women if they want their sons to be able to have a good chance of living a good life.
I had one of these tarts try to pull the "You're the baby daddy" shit on me once. I didn't let on till the day she was getting labor induced to fill her in on the fact that my vasectomy was 3 years previous.
Needless to say, somehow this became my fault with me as the sonofabitch.
I think the law should be that, in the case of couples who are not married, the man is presumed to NOT want to be a father. If the woman seeks child support, she should have to produce a signed, notarized document in which the man indicates that he wants to be a father, and wants his full parental rights and responsibilities (including financial support). Without this document, all the woman should be entitled to from the man should be one half of the cost of her prenatal/delivery care or one half of the cost of an abortion (whichever applies).
Don't tell me that men should "keep it in their pants" or else "step up." Bullshit. A woman can spread her legs, but she is not then not required to "step up." She can abort the child, or give it up for adoption, or legally abandon it. Men have no such options. They, under our current laws, only have the choices of contracetpion or abstinence. Women have both of those choices, plus the three I just mentioned. And, don't telll me that "life is unfair" or "that's just the way it is," because that's bullshit too. It's not "life" or "biology" that make a man pay child support, it's the law. And when designing the law, you're damn right that "fairness" should enter into it.
The real reason why abortion is legal (cutting through all the "right to privacy" nonsense) is autonomy. The law does not think that a woman should be forced to be a parent against her will. And the law is not persuaded that the choices of abstinence, contraception, adoption, and so on, are good enough. No, the rule is "no forced parenthood." Except, when it comes to men. Then, inconsistently, hypocritically, and unfairly, a man is held to have "chosen" when he didn't abstain or use contraceptions. Hell, as some of the horror stories reported here show (lies about contraception by women, statutory rape by women, retrieval of sperm from condom by woman, masterbation of male while sleeping for purposes of obtaining sperm by women), the law doesn't care if a man had even these choices.
It's time to call bullshit on all of this. My wallet, my choice. If, as a single man, I want to be a father, if I agree to take of a baby, financially and otherwise, fine. Give me that option. Also, if I choose not to be a father, it is only fair that after the baby is born the mother doesn't have to share custody or other rights with me. It's her baby now, for better or worse. I'm a big boy and can live with my decisions, just as women are presumed to be big girls who can live with their decisions as to whether to abort or not, or put a child up for adoption or not.
Reproductive freedom for all, men and women. Stop letting the law hide behind false claims of "biology" to prevent gender equity and fairness. The genders are obviously not the same when it comes to making babies, but that is no excuse for not making the law as fair and as equal as it can be in this field.
It's imperative today that fathers teach their sons to be responsible, and not keep company with drunks, drug addicts and loose women if they want their sons to be able to have a good chance of living a good life.
"Hey son, now listen carefully. When you are forced to play a losing game with one hand tied behind your back, you really need to do the responsible thing and tie the other one behind your back, too." That advice leads to a worse life where they have to avoid a lot of women in their own social class and try to either land one of the other (highly sought after women) in their social class or women socially superior to them. Or, up their social class. In all of these cases, you are simply upping the ante and actually losing more. Everyone likes to sit around and pretend that those kind of men made it work anyway as if it didn't cost them anything to do that and as if they really got everything out of it that the cover story would seem to suggest.
I should know -- I'm one of those men that did it anyway -- it's not really worth it. I certainly can't recommend it to my kids. It's not like I would give up anything that I got out of it. In fact, I cling more than ever to it, now: the love of my wife and kids and the stability of my family. Most people would look at guys like me and think we are the winners or at least not the losers. I am the sole breadwinner of my family, and I always have been. I have a college degree and a white collar job, and my wife is degreed, as well. We bought a house. You know -- everything you are supposed to do. I doubt I could really be very convincing about why this isn't the 50s style life it must seem to be -- neither to the feminist bitches that think I have nothing to complain about nor to other men, for that matter, that have done something like this. But, it isn't, espcially when, for instance, millions of those guys are, unbeknownst to them, raising another man's child.
JG, while we agree in principle, you need to take a step back and ask "what is the law on this today?".
Yes - women have the hammer, and you'd damned well better remember it while you're giving her YOUR hammer. Don't cry after the fact; ignorance, or screaming 'no fair' is not a valid defense.
Yeah, yeah - it's me: that ridiculed, so-called 'real man' from a previous post. This time, we're on the same page regarding the gross inequity of the system, but I'm smart enough to realize I can't BEAT that system, and will attempt to act within it. If I fail, I'm going to pay. Period. Doesn't mean I think it's right.
Until things begin to balance out in the eyes of the law, your options remain to keep it in your pants, or take an expensive chance.
What's a 'real man' to do?
Things are not even remotely balanced when it comes to "reproductive choice." No news flash there, we all agree.
Given that the playing field is far from even, the wise adjust their game plan. "Don't sleep with women you are not married to" is not moralizing, it is very savvy game advice.
Fair? Not even close. But the reality is there and the wise will deal with things as they are.
The parties that are the most victimized are the children that are conceived in fraud and raised in deception without knowing what a loving marriage looks like.
Trey
Trey
TMink -
The parties that are the most victimized are the children that are conceived in fraud and raised in deception without knowing what a loving marriage looks like.
A-freakin-men. I am at the point, where I think mandatory DNA testing should be done at birth to determine the paternity of a child. It is fraud, and should be, if not punishable by jail (especially when child support is involved), then grounds for an annullment and no support (of any kind).
The fact that most modern feminists resist this, tells me that women are more important to them than children (or men, but we knew that).
Apparently, a "real man" is to keep his head down and sit at the back of the bus where he belongs. Uppity Y-chromosome holders...
Think about how society would have treated the woman the other way around. That would have definitely been rape.
Most states have abandoned sex-specific verbiage in their rape laws. He should have had her charged with rape since he has both the DNA evidence and eyewitness testimony evidence to prove it. Then he should have petitioned for custody once she's been jailed. I know, some jails have childcare facilities so she might be able to defend against a custody petition, but it would have been worth a try.
Yeah, life is unfair to men having sex. But we're talking about unprotected sex here; what kind of moron of a man trusts a woman when having sex? This is as dumb as a woman not on birth control trusting the word of a man who claims to have had a vasectomy or otherwise shoots blanks.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Perhaps JG, the male proponents of this "real man" bullshit are men who can't point to any other factor which might put them in a good light. If a man is a hen-pecked husband, or a "nice guy" who gets passed over in the singles bars, or is otherwise and for whatever reason not seen as a "macho man," either by himself, by his fellow men, or by women, maybe he then tends envy other men ("alpha males," "players," and "bad boys") who are seen as prototypically masculine. Our hero has to find, to rescue his own sense of worth, some area in which he outshines other men in terms of "being a man." He has nothing but his own "responsibility" (either actual or hypothetical) to fit the bill, so that is what he resorts to. He preaches one of more of these lines:
"I'm more of a 'real man' than that single guy who scores with lots of women (unlike me, damnit!), but got fooled by one of them who said she was on the pill, or who retrieved his sperm from a condom, or who masterbated him while he was asleep so she could steal his sperm. Why? Because at least I am 'responsible' for the children I fathered [or, if he is single and totally undesirable, he would be, he insists, responsible for the children that he sired, if he had, in fact, sired any]. So, all appearances to the contrary, I'm more of a 'real man' than those Casanovas who are refusing to 'step up' and pay child support."
or
"I'm more of a 'real man' than that kid who, even at a young age, was seen as a desirable sperm donor by a woman, which led to his being stautorily raped. Yeah, I kinda wish that had happened to me when I was a boy, he fantasizes [note: I am not excusing that female statutory rapists, nor am I saying their actions don't lead to their victims being harmed. I'm just saying this is how the 'real man' advocates see it], but, still, I'm more of a 'real man' than him, because I am responsible for the children I fathered [or, again, I would have been responsible for the children I fathered if I had fathered any], while this 'punk' is trying to use his youth to avoid "stepping up."
No matter what the scenario, no matter how unfair, exploitative, manipulative and entrapping the behavior of the woman involved, the 'real man' advocate will always, in effect, take her side.
That's how he shows his masulinity. By advocating a harsh, draconian and totally unfair legal regime to be applied to his fellow men, probably because he envies them, ironically, for being, in truth, more of a "real man" than he is.
"what kind of moron of a man trusts a woman when having sex?"
What kind of man has sex with a woman he CAN'T trust?
Seriously.
Trey
This is all very simple guys, don't have sex with her unless you are prepared to marry her.
If you are not prepared to marry her, then keep it in your pants.
Ruddyturnstone is right: outside of marriage, it should be presumed that a man does not want to be a father.
Now that abortion is both safe and legal, we have severed the connection between pregnancy and childbirth. Pregnancy, still, is not a choice; but today childbirth is, and childbirth is 100% the choice of the woman. As such, if the law were to reflect this new set of facts, she would be the one legally responsible for it.
@Dogwood
How about if a woman was told: "It's all very simply gals, don't have sex with him unless you are prepared to be a single mom. If you are not prepared to raise the child yourself or put it up for adoption, then keep your pants on."
Now, I'm not saying I agree with the above "how about..." I'm just saying how is one any worse than the other, aside from the woman=good, man=bad dogma?
@: "outside of marriage, it should be presumed that a man does not want to be a father."
____
Absolutely. Most men know the risk (outside of manipulation and lying on the part of the woman), and are willing to step up should something go wrong. However, if a woman has to lie about being on birth control, shouldn't that be her first clue that he doesn't want to be a father? And if she wants him to father her child, what is wrong with asking him to?
Pregnancy, still, is not a choice
Bullshit. We know the exact cause of pregnancy and people can choose to engage in the behavior that causes it, or they can choose not to engage in such behavior, or they can engage in such behavior while using contraceptives knowing that they do not provide 100 percent protection against pregnancy.
In other words, they decide the risk of birth control failure is acceptable and are therefore willing to live with the consequences.
I may be misinterpreting things, but some of you seem to be advocating that men should be able to screw whomever they wish without fear of consequences.
Life doesn't work that way, nor will it ever.
Trust,
Society has chosen to put the interests of the child first and foremost, and I don't see that changing anytime soon, so men need to proceed accordingly.
Also, maybe if women spent more time thinking about the consequences of single parenthood, and men spent more time thinking about the expense of child support, maybe, just maybe, everyone could begin acting a bit more responsibly and we would have fewer messed up kids.
Yeah, I know, dream on.
Also, maybe if women spent more time thinking about the consequences of single parenthood, [...] we would have fewer messed up kids.
Trouble is, society keeps trying to make the consequences of single parenthood for women 100% positive.
Dogwood:
"I may be misinterpreting things, but some of you seem to be advocating that men should be able to screw whomever they wish without fear of consequences."
You mean the way women can now, under the law? You're not misrepresenting me. Under our current legal regime, a woman can screw whoever she wants without fear of consequences. First term abortions are brief, painless and inexpensive procedures, which women have a right to procure under current constitutional law. If a woman screws a guy, and gets pregnant, she has this easy out. And no one, including the father, can stop her, even if he wants the baby. I say put men on an equal footing, to the extent possible. If a man screws a woman, and she gets pregnant, and he does not want to be a father, while she wants to be a mother, he should have an easy out of his own. Pay half the cost of pre natal and delivery care and say "It's your baby, now, sweetheart. I don't want it. I never wanted it. Since you chose not to abort it, which you had every right to do, you can now either give it up for adoption or legally abandon it. But, if you choose to keep it, it's on you. You're the only parent, legally and financially. You have all the parental rights, and all of the parental responsibilities."
Notice that even this legal arrangement would still give women more choices than men. If a man wants the baby, but the woman doesn't, she can still abort it and leave him childless. But, if she wants it, and he doesn't, she can have it anyway. That's because, as I said, the law can't necessarily make men and women completely "equal" when it comes to having babies. But, it can try. It doesn't HAVE to be completely one-sided, as it is now.
"Life doesn't work that way, nor will it ever."
HAH! "Life" has nothing, not a damn thing, to do with it. "Life," or "biology" or "reality" or whatever you choose to call it, makes the woman pregnant, not the man. As far as "life" is concerned, the whole thing is on her, not him. It is the LAW that puts the man on the hook, financially and otherwise. The law is not immutable, nor is it a force of nature. The law is a product of human choice and design. The law can and should be changed.
Trouble is, society keeps trying to make the consequences of single parenthood for women 100% positive.
True, or at least appear to be 100% positive, until they get there.
@: "True, or at least appear to be 100% positive, until they get there."
___________
Anything that isn't 100% positive means that men need to "man up."
Conversely, if things are 100% negative for a man, he needs to "man up."
I say put men on an equal footing, to the extent possible.
I agree to a point. For example, I don't believe abortion should be allowed unless both parents agree to it.
However, I would treat the decision to have the child as the default position, not something that needs to be agreed to between the parents. By having consensual sex, both partners are implicitly accepting the risk of pregnancy.
I would disagree, though, with any law that allowed men to be more careless, irresponsible or indifferent in their role as a parent.
Dogwood:
"I agree to a point. For example, I don't believe abortion should be allowed unless both parents agree to it."
That would change everything, wouldn't it? Women would no longer have the "easy out" as a matter of course. Then there would be a justification for not giving men one either. Under your rule, they are both parents unless both of them agree not to be. While that would certainly be equal, I would be against it, because I actually do favor reproductive freedon.
"However, I would treat the decision to have the child as the default position, not something that needs to be agreed to between the parents. By having consensual sex, both partners are implicitly accepting the risk of pregnancy."
In my view, they are only "implicitly" accepting that risk, or not, because of the law. Not because of "reality" or "biology" or "life." As it stands now, a man is accepting that risk, because he can't "make" a woman get an abortion (or go the adoption/legal abandonment route) and he can't opt out of fatherhood any other way. A woman is not, again, as the law stands now, accepting any risk. If she wants to abort the baby, she can.
Under your proposed system, both parties would be accepting the risk. Under mine, neither would.
Still, I think it is important to keep in mind that it is the legal regime which determines whether one is accepting a risk or not, not some vague notion of "life" or "nature" or "reality."
"I would disagree, though, with any law that allowed men to be more careless, irresponsible or indifferent in their role as a parent."
I'm not sure what you mean here? Do you mean after a child is born? Or, in the decision to have the baby or not, which is what we've been talking about.
If you mean the former, I agree. Men and women should have equal responsibilities for their children. (Although, unlike you, I would only apply this rule if both parents actually wanted the child.)
If you mean the latter, then my position is, once again, that men should should be allowed to be just as careless, indifferent and irresponsible as women are. Neither a man nor a woman should be forced to be parents against their will. And I don't accredit the argument that, by having sex, they have already either fully expressed that will or have exercized all the "choice" they are entitled to. Abortion is possible. It is legal. And I have no moral objection to it. That being the case, neither party should be allowed to rope the other into unwanted parenthood through what are in my view spurious claims of "implicit consent."
Dogwood, virtue always takes a back seat to justice. This is why one should never try to legislate virtue -- because doing so almost always entails an injustice. And, committing an ijustice is always, always lacking in virtue no matter how "good" the cause seems to be at the time. And, this is precisely what you are attempting to do: trump a matter of justice with a doctrine of virtue. Your doctrine of virtue might have been relevant two centuries ago, but now all you do is perpetuate injustice with it.
------
On an aside, hey Helen, when you gonna open up a message board?? That would be awesome! (I know. Lots of work, you probably aren't interested anyway... blah blah blah.... I should be careful what I wish for, anyway, either it would be over run by cryptofeminists or I would be the first to be banned....)
...neither party should be allowed to rope the other into unwanted parenthood...
If you don't want to be a parent, then keep your sperm away from her egg. Easy peasy.
If you mean the latter, then my position is, once again, that men should should be allowed to be just as careless, indifferent and irresponsible as women are.
That's what is happening in our inner city neighborhoods. Do you really want that for the entire country? I don't.
Your doctrine of virtue might have been relevant two centuries ago...
It is not a virtue vs. justice question, it is a very pragmatic question of how society deals with millions of children born outside of marriage.
Again, look to our inner cities for an example of what happens when no one is responsible for their sexual behavior. Poverty, welfare dependency, children being raised in single parent homes, boys without fathers who turn to gangs for the male relationships they need, girls becoming promiscuous and pregnant to get the love they never received from a father, etc., etc.
C'mon, surely you recognize the enormous costs of such behavior in lives destroyed, and tax dollars wasted on welfare and failed social programs. Your tax dollars, not theirs.
You can make a very good case that paternity laws are too biased toward women, but to then argue that men should be allowed to be just as irresponsible or careless is absurd.
Do we really want to reduce our rights and responsibilities to the lowest common denominator prevalent throughout the inner cities?
I refuse to become as narcissistic & nihilistic as the feminists or the denizens of inner city America. Go for it if you want, but I'm skipping that party.
me:
"...neither party should be allowed to rope the other into unwanted parenthood..."
Dogwood:
"If you don't want to be a parent, then keep your sperm away from her egg. Easy peasy."
That's one way. And it's open to both men and women. But women also have another way, abortion, and it's "easy peasy" too. I see no reason for not giving men a similar, "easy peasy" option.
me:
"If you mean the latter, then my position is, once again, that men should should be allowed to be just as careless, indifferent and irresponsible as women are."
Dogwood:
"That's what is happening in our inner city neighborhoods. . . "
Is it? What's happening in our inner city neighborhoods is that men are NOT allowed to be careless, indifferent, etc., but women are. If the rule was no child support for single mothers (unless the man consented ahead of time) then maybe single motherhood would be a less attractive option for women. Combine that with the removal of other legal, government-created incentives to single motherhood, and it might start to seem like a bad deal for women.
How about this? If you're a single mom, you get nothing from Dad unless he signed up for it. Also, you get nothing from Uncle Sam, or the State and local governments either. If you can't afford to raise your child properly, then the child is put in an orphanage-like institution and kept there unless and until you can afford it. You are only allowed to see the child for certain hours of the day, and, during the weekdays, not at all from eight in the morning until six at night. During that time, you should either be working, looking for work, or perhaps, training for work. If you refuse to do any of that, you lose the child altogether and it is put up for adoption. Meanwhile, the baby gets what he or she needs (as he or she is not to blame for your irresponsibility). The baby is fed, clothed, attended to, given medical care, shelter, etc. You get nothing. No food stamps, no subsidized apartment, no free medical care (after the child is born), no welfare, nothing.
Dogwood:
"You can make a very good case that paternity laws are too biased toward women, but to then argue that men should be allowed to be just as irresponsible or careless is absurd."
What's "absurd" about it? If women are allowed to screw around without becoming mothers, men should be allowed to screw around without becoming fathers. As Mario stated, childbirth is now totally the "choice" of the woman, men have no say in it whatsoever. That being the case, the cost of the child should be on the woman, as she was the person who chose it. If she can't meet that cost, as I said in my last post, then she should lose the baby. Over time, that would lead to more, not less, responsible behavior.
Back before single men were routinely hit up for child support, and before "the government" picked up the tab, women would do their damndest to avoid single motherhood. They would abstain, they would use contraceptives, or they would get abortions, even though the second option was difficult and the third one was illegal. Now, why should they? If you're kind of a dopey young woman, too lazy to do well in school, or a misfit, or whatever, why not get pregnant, like those girls in Gloucester, MA? Either the men will have to pay you child support, or the government will take care of you. You don't have to get a job, you get to stay home and be with a baby, which is something that middle class people who work struggle to be able to affort.
Not only is the current system unfair, but it creates perverse incentives as well.
t is not a virtue vs. justice question, it is a very pragmatic question of how society deals with millions of children born outside of marriage.
...
C'mon, surely you recognize the enormous costs of such behavior in lives destroyed, and tax dollars wasted on welfare and failed social programs. Your tax dollars, not theirs.
Nope. This is precisely the teleological and subjective matter of virtue I just mentioned. Yes, it all leads to bad consequences. And, it is thoroughly lacking in virtue all the way around. But, all of that is superceded by the issue of justice.
In short, it will all end if women are held responsible for their behavior. The mens' involvement is completely independent of it and irrelevant.
Do we really want to reduce our rights and responsibilities to the lowest common denominator prevalent throughout the inner cities?
Okay, you want the real response? There is no "reducing our rights" to anything. It is a simple matter of fact, not virtue, value or anything else, it is women that are being coddled and abetted in their injustices. You fix that problem, and it's all over. You don't, and it will never end. It's that simple. How much you like the other people involved is irrelevant.
I refuse to become as narcissistic & nihilistic as the feminists or the denizens of inner city America. Go for it if you want, but I'm skipping that party.
Oh really....
If you're a single mom, you get nothing from Dad unless he signed up for it.
He signed up for it when he got her pregnant.
Also, you get nothing from Uncle Sam, or the State and local governments either.
The absence of benefits would certainly discourage single parenthood for many, but probably not all, since unmet psychological needs are a factor in some teen pregnancy cases.
I don't have a problem with adopting policies to strongly discourage single parenthood, but I don't think you can do that by reducing the father's responsibilities.
In short, it will all end if women are held responsible for their behavior. The mens' involvement is completely independent of it and irrelevant.
Last time I checked, a man is still needed to get a woman pregnant, even fertility clinics need male donors to make it work, so they are relevant.
Do women need to change their behavior? Of course. Do men need to stop thinking with their dicks? Of course. Do laws need to be changed. Of course.
But until the above happens, keep it in your pants unless you're prepared to marry her.
It is amazing how one, very simple rule can avoid so many troubles, heartache, and attorney fees.
me:
"If you're a single mom, you get nothing from Dad unless he signed up for it."
Dogwood:
"He signed up for it when he got her pregnant."
You know, you can just keep repeating that until you're blue in the face. But I still don't buy it. I am not going to bother repeating the arguments about disparate opportunities for choice once again, as you, and anyone else following the discussion, already get it. And no amount of cutesy-poo "easy peasy" or psuedo obtuse "he signed up for it when he got her pregnant" is going to change that. You want to play literal-mindedness? Fine, when he fucked her didn't "sign" anything.
It's her belly, her baby and her "choice," let her deal with it.
Note also that you have now, in the classic chivalric/feminist manner, just excused Miss Thing of all responsibility whatsoever. He "got her pregnant", huh? And that's something he did all by himself, or "to" her? She had nothing to do with it, right? Poor, passive little thing. He should be a "real man" and "step up" to his "responsibilites," shouldn't he?
"The absence of benefits would certainly discourage single parenthood for many. . ."
Your damn right it would.
". . .but probably not all, since unmet psychological needs are a factor in some teen pregnancy cases. . . "
No solution is perfect. But those girls you are talking about sound like prime candidates for the adoption/legal abandonment route anyway.
"I don't have a problem with adopting policies to strongly discourage single parenthood, but I don't think you can do that by reducing the father's responsibilities."
You're wrong. As long as it is on the "single father" or on "the government" to pay for the baby, then there is no reason for young women to stop producing them. It's simple economics. The woman chose to have the baby, let her be "responsible" for paying for it. Make it a liability for her, rather than a cash cow, and see how fast the situation changes.
Last time I checked, a man is still needed to get a woman pregnant, even fertility clinics need male donors to make it work, so they are relevant.
And, last I checked, an atmosphere was still required to make a concussion grenade effective at killing a group of people it was detonated in the midst of. So what?
Do women need to change their behavior? Of course. Do men need to stop thinking with their dicks? Of course. Do laws need to be changed. Of course.
But until the above happens, keep it in your pants unless you're prepared to marry her.
It is amazing how one, very simple rule can avoid so many troubles, heartache, and attorney fees
"Do [serial killers] need to change their behavior? Of course. Do [their victims] need to stop thinking with their [hearts]? Of course. Do laws need to be changed. Of course.
"But until the above happens, [don't ever try to meet new people you think you might be able to find some happiness in life with] unless you're prepared to [be tortured to death].
"It is amazing how one, very simple rule can avoid so many troubles, heartache, and attorney fees."
You are acting like a morally depraved idiot. Surely, that is not what you intended. It is that simple.
Caveman simple....
Start talking about the people perpetrating the crimes and leave their victims out of it. Period. Unless and until you do that, you are just another aggressive asshole trying to victimize the world.
Perhaps going Galt should be looked at in more than one way.
Trust wrote: ""It's all very simply gals, don't have sex with him unless you are prepared to be a single mom. If you are not prepared to raise the child yourself or put it up for adoption, then keep your pants on.""
Sage advice.
Trey
I don't think Dr. H. means that men shouldn't be careful or that men should have a license to knock people up without consequence. The issue is not in behavior, but with the legal aspects.
A parrallel is that while it is ill advised for a women to have unprotected sex with a stranger who swears he had a vasectomy, that doesn't alleviate his culpability in deceiving her. The difference is that, in the case of male deception, the law sides with the woman, whereas in the case of female deception, the law also sides with the woman.
Back in primitive times, if a man raped a woman she would be forced to marry him. I think we can all see how evil of a practice this is, basically richly rewarding a man for vile behavior. But no one bats a lash when the courts force a man to be a financial husband when a woman decieves or even rapes him. Child support requirements far exceed, in many cases, what the child costs, and you know the mommas aren't usually putting that away for the child's future.
And the "best for the child" card gets a bit old too. No one cares about "best for the child" when it comes to abortion, in that case the concern is "reproductive freedom." Best for the child is a noble sounding excuse to ass rape a man. If "best for the child" were the real concern, there wouldn't be so many abortions and there would be a hell of a lot more adoptions.
There is no easy answer to this dilemma. I don't want men to be able to go from vagina to vagina getting women knocked up without any responsibility. On the other hand, I don't think it is fair for women to be rewarded so richly for deceit and carelessness either. I don't believe for one second that all the Vagina MonoLaws(TM) have not had anything to do with the skyrocketing pregnancy rate. Incentive always affects behavior.
@Trey
Feminists aren't as fond of their own advise when genders are reversed.
Let single mothers rot in the streets with their filthy brats. If anything, it'll cut down on the future prison population and filter out poor DNA from the herd.
The weak will perish of their own actions. They always do. Meanwhile, all men should train their sons how to spot deceptive whores, because the laws aren't going to change. The weak always need laws and 'regulations' in order to syphon off the strong.
There is no easy answer to this dilemma. I don't want men to be able to go from vagina to vagina getting women knocked up without any responsibility. On the other hand, I don't think it is fair for women to be rewarded so richly for deceit and carelessness either. I don't believe for one second that all the Vagina MonoLaws(TM) have not had anything to do with the skyrocketing pregnancy rate. Incentive always affects behavior.
And this is when we relearn the reasons for discouraging promiscuity and limiting sexual relations, through religious and social pressure, to married couples.
It's like we're goddamn cavemen trying to reinvent the wheel here.
These rules existed before modern times for a reason, and now we're painfully rediscovering them. Birth control didn't change the game quite as much as we'd like to pretend.
Adrian,
I have often thought about doing a message board for members only so that people could talk more freely. I am not sure why you think you would be banned. You haven't been so far.
Trust wrote: "Feminists aren't as fond of their own advise when genders are reversed."
True.
But only the feminists who are really bigots!
Trey
What is absolutely needed is the "Male Pill."
You can imagine how that would change the landscape of sexual politicking and dynamics.
However, you will notice that every time it gets mentioned the feminist blogs start pooh-poohing the idea, talking about how "men will never take it," pushing the idea that men should have "consent," whispering about impotence and permanent infertility.
This along with their male chivalrist lapdogs.
Hmm. Wonder why the idea of men beig in control of their own reproductive destiny makes them wet the bed so much?
Trust:
"I don't want men to be able to go from vagina to vagina getting women knocked up without any responsibility."
I do. Women can go from penis to penis, getting knocked up without any responsibility. It's called abortion. The choice to have the baby or not, to abort or not, is all up to the woman, therefore the responsibility for the baby (if she doesn't abort) should be all hers too.
And, again, I would note that a poster has fallen into the language trap of chivalry/feminism. . . "men. . .getting women knocked up. . ." Men do not "get" women "knocked up." Women become "knocked up" because they have sex, usually without contraceptives. Women have agency, they have choices, they are not merely passive victims.
Something else to consider. A person who is more vulnerable than another person to the risks of an activity should exercize greater caution in enganging that activity than the second person. Preventing that enhanced harm should be the vulnerable person's "responsibility." And if the vulnerable person engages in the activity anyway, and the harm does in fact occur, well, then that person has no one but herself to blame, even if it takes two to engage in the activity.
Let's say two people decide to play a few games of mumbly peg (a game played with knives). One is a hemophiliac, one isn't. In the course of play, if the non-hemophiliac gets cut a few times, it's no big deal. But if the hemophiliac gets cut even once, she will be lucky if she doesn't bleed to death. That being the case, I would say it is the "responsiblity" of the hemophiliac, not the other person, to avoid playing mumbly peg.
Applying this reasoning to sex and pregnancy, women can get pregnant from sex, men can't. Therefore, if a woman does not want to become pregnant, it is up to her to avoid sex. Unless she is raped, a pregnant woman has no one but herself to blame for her fate. Men can't get pregnant, so, like the non-hemophiliac in the above analogy, the vulnerability of the other person is not their responsibility.
Pete:
"Hmmm.Wonder why the idea of men beig in control of their own reproductive destiny makes them [the feminists] wet the bed so much?"
Yeah, but they have their backup plans. Already, in many places, "living together" creates many of the same financial obligations on men to women that marriage does. It is only a short step from that to requiring a man to pay a woman whenever a "relationship" ends, even if it's only a one night stand. If men withdraw further, then the feminists will pass a law simply mandating a "tax" on all single men, the proceeds of which will be paid to women.
However, you will notice that every time it gets mentioned the feminist blogs start pooh-poohing the idea
They do a lot more than that. They consistently argue that men having the same reproductive control women do, including things like the "male pill", harms women and should therefore be banned.
Already, in many places, "living together" creates many of the same financial obligations on men to women that marriage does.
I know they're pushing that idea in England. Where else is this happening?
Any culture that gives a woman the sole, absolute freedom to choose to have the baby or abort the fetus needs to place sole, absolute responsbility for that decision on her.
Freedom without responsibility = despotism.
Resposibility without freedom = slavery.
randian:
California pioneered the notion of "palimony" decades ago. I'm pretty sure New Jersey has it too. And Australia, where, if I'm not mistaken, the obligations start once the "relationship" hits the 6 months mark. Without doing a lot of research, I think it's safe to say that this is going on pretty much throughout the Anglosphere, if not the whole Western world.
I do not really understand what "feminism" is all about.
I do know this much, it is not about what feminists say it's about. If it were, not only could I understand it, I would, for the most part, agree with it. There are easily as many brilliant and capable females in this world as there are men. My daughters are two such brilliant and capable females.
So really, what gives?
- Don't get maried. Marriage is not about love. It is a parasitic relationship.
- Don't cohabitate.
- Don't have children.
- D0 get a vasectomy.
- DO let looters, con-artists and parasites rot in the sewer where they belong.
- DO practice civil disobedience when neccessary, and un-civil disobedience when required.
Feminists and collectivist crackpots are beyond talking to. You cannot expect the unreasonable to reason. Debate is over.
Be prepared.
Dogwood:"But until the above happens, keep it in your pants unless you're prepared to marry her.
It is amazing how one, very simple rule can avoid so many troubles, heartache, and attorney fees."
Wise words that I agree with completely. The problem is, you're offering a temporary cure for the issue and its an uphill battle given human nature of wanting to "get it on", in an ever increasingly sexualized society.
It also doesn't mean much when a man can be married, a player, a loner, a rape victim, a 14 year old stat rape victim, or even a virgin and still have the system make him a father through legal chicanery, all under the guise of "think of the children" and "get those deadbeat dads!".
There are men who are not fathers, some who are married, others who are just joe average off the street (or soldiers/vets being a favorite target) that the state ends up naming as a father of some kid and who's job is it to prove they're aren't? Hint, its not the state's job. Thus you have that guy in Ohio recently paying for a kid not his because of a same LAST NAME mixup. I read of a story from a guy in Louisianna on lewrockwell.com while back who after 6+ months of fighting with a county DA got off the hook for supposedly fathering 3 kids via DNA test. It cost him $1500 bucks via an attorney to get the DA off his back.
Boy, am I so glad I'm gay. Although, the same point about using protection applies.
Time just ran a piece titled "A Gay-Marriage Solution: End Marriage?"
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1885190,00.html
Can you imagine what the (so-called) family courts would do to men if there was no longer a distinction between a boyfriend and a husband?
I have often thought about doing a message board for members only so that people could talk more freely.
Do it! I would come post for sure. I'm always on the look out for good mens rights forums. I've been going here, lately. I guess they are considered "hard core" -- there's definitely plenty of "male chauvenistic" type of commentary. But, what I really like about it is the libertarian cant on things as opposed to agitating for equal privileges for men. (I think Chris is a libertarian but mostly he is just not a weenie.)
I am not sure why you think you would be banned. You haven't been so far.
True. But, then again, "I am just lucky that way." Actually, I recently had a blow out on some forum and they didn't ban me either, so maybe my luck is changing.... ;o)
I know a man who was in a relationship with a woman who ended things once she was preganant. He would have married her, but she didn't want to marry him. He wanted to have a relationship with his child, even if the relationship between he and the mother wasn't going any further. She just wanted the child support money. He has taken her to court and gotten a custody agreement. She moves to another state... one far enough away that there's no reasonable way either of them can afford to fly the kid back and forth to fulfill the custody agreement. But he still has to pay child support. She lets the kid write letters to his father, but then she doesn't mail them and tells the kid she doesn't know why his dad never answers the letters. She doesn't give him any cards or presents his dad sends. The man and his wife caught onto this and managed to talk to someone at the school the kid was going to. The school let him send letters to the kid there. The mother caught onto that and put the kid in a different school. The judge has required that the man provide health insurance for the child, but the mother refuses to disclose any information about the child's health, such as whether or not he inherited his father's asthma. Things that an insurance company would want to know.
They've taken the woman to court again and again, when they can track her down. She never ends up paying the consequences of any part of an agreement that she violates. When the man could barely pay his own bills one month because of jury duty that drug on and on, leaving his pay severely lacking for several weeks and making his child support payment late, she called the State Attorney General's office and had someone after him.
This man wants this child and is being denied the chance to be anything more than a source of money, and he's being forced to be that. And no, they weren't married, but it wasn't a one night stand, either. If they had been married, I have little doubt she would have divorced him and then put him through all of this.
The judge has required that the man provide health insurance for the child, but the mother refuses to disclose any information about the child's health, such as whether or not he inherited his father's asthma. Things that an insurance company would want to know.
Sounds like someone may be worried about the results of a blood test.
He may want to contact social services in her region and explain that he's concerned that she's endangering the child. The pattern of behavior you describe would throw-up a lot of red flags to a child welfare professional.
---------
The reviews of One-Night Stand suggest that the author's story is even weirder than this article portrays. She was deliberately pursuing much younger men.
I have the impression that her behavior was off-putting to men her age, and so she went after guys who were too young to recognize the signals that she was conveying.
Frankly she doesn't seem right in the head. For instance, she apparently expected that the father should remain sexually faithful to her. So she thought that she could trick him into impregnating her and then he would have to be her lover.
The main problem with this is all the polluted single-mother DNA that's going to be running around. It brings down the entire species.
The pattern of behavior you describe would throw-up a lot of red flags to a child welfare professional.
Not if dad is the one complaining. The experience of most non-custodial dads is that child welfare agencies are extremely aggressive at policing anything that dad does or is alleged to have done, but won't lift a finger to police mothers.
"Society has chosen to put the interests of the child first and foremost, and I don't see that changing anytime soon, so men need to proceed accordingly."
Were that true, society would ensure that all child support is used to support the child. It does not, therefore the statement is false.
MetalOver30 --
"Marriage is not about love. It is a parasitic relationship."
Nope. I know a number of successful and non parasitic marriages where the couples love each other.
Were that true, society would ensure that all child support is used to support the child. It does not, therefore the statement is false.
Even if that were to occur, at current standards of child support we would simply end up with gold-plated spoiled brats. It's not enough to stop moms from profiting off of child support, payments must be drastically reduced as well.
Forty some years ago in boot camp my company commander told us young recruits to always remember that women regard their pussies as gold mines, and the ones you could usually trust were the ones who were right up front about selling it for a negotiated agreed-upon price.
If women wanted a child without a man's wallet being forcefully opened to her, she could go to a sperm donor facility.
Without marriage, there is no contractual obligation to support the child. That's why we HAVE marriage. The men in these circumstances should be thought of as having no more/no less responsibility than any other sperm donor.
Yes, it may be cruel for a while, but cruelty seems to be the only way to get through to women that this is morally wrong ("morally" in the generic sense).
Far too many bad ideas/social re-engineering schemes have come about with the cover of being kinder. It's not kinder, as it results in millions more children being denied the opportunity of being raised in a stable home, by a mother AND a father.
That which you support you get more of. Duh.
"... that women regard their pussies as gold mines ..."
---
Well, they basically ARE.
I don't know too many men who can just sit and watch TV and go from 0 to several million dollars (there are a few lotto winners who pulled it off, I guess, and John Kerry). But MILLIONS of women become millionaires that way, by successfully auctioning off the vagina to a guy with bucks. Look at the fortunes women like Amy Irving and Heather Mills obtained with their cunts.
And then there's that TV show where some obnoxious matchmaker broad pimps out women to rich guys. What a bunch of worthless skanks.
But of course, most women don't say anything about that, do they?
And when men say something about it, women tell us to 'Stop whining.'
Yeah, we're supposed to be tough guys and keep our mouths shut - especially when it comes to shelling out for women.
I give marriage another fifty years, tops. Then it goes bye bye. Men aren't going to stay in a losing situation forever.
MetalOver30 -- That Millionaire Matchmaker show deserves a blog entry for itself. I just saw it the other day. I love how she criticized this one 45 year old male millionaire for his "ageism" because he wanted a woman no older than 35.
He wanted to have kids, and I imagine that it only makes sense that he may have thought it important to first establish a solid relationship with the potential mother of his children, which of course takes time. So what does the "matchmaker" do? She sets him up with a 40 year old -- I suppose just to prove a point.
Best case scenario? If he loves her, he'd have to get married right away and begin having children immediately. Then he'd have to hope he made the right choice -- oh, and that there were no complications with the birth because of her advanced age.
Of course, are the women ever accused of their "dollarism"? Never. A girl shouldn't have to suffer the complications of a depleted bank account.
Mario -
You hit it on the head. The 'Matchmaker' (aka 'Madamme')has no problem with 'dollarism' when it comes to sorting out the guys. This obvious double standard really annoys me.
Anyone who knows anything about evolution knows how the human mating game works. Men look for young, healthy, attractive mates because they signifiy an ability to produce healthy offspring. Women look for succesful men because they signifiy an ability to provide for them and their offspring.
This show in particular says that men should circumvent their evolutionary drive, while women should maintain theirs. This is PURE hypocrisy, and it's all over the media in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. But you'd have to read a book or to to understand this and see it. I doubt this skank madamme reads much beyond self-help pamphlets, so she's a lost cause.
I was troubled and saddened by the topic at hand, and upon reading many of the comments my disposition only worsened.
It would seem that we have exchanged morals and values for laws and rights. Meanwhile, the children are lost in the shuffle.
God help us.
Post a Comment
<< Home