"No means no!" but only for women

[THE Bigzoman]

Thread title and initial post.

This "subject" comes up here every few months. The arguments are always the same - typically ignoring the "Sorry, Timmy, but your biological father wants to be a deadbeat so you're just going to have to settle for less" inevitability that such wanton scumbaggery will produce, but this one is pretty new. And I'm honestly impressed that it actually fell below my already basement-level moral expectations of MRA and MGTOW arguments.

Ah,

My last few posts were talking about a particular court case and talked about laws for a bit. I thought you were linking that to an argument I didn't make.

You can see my initial post in the thread on my stance. I think more effective male contraception makes this a non-issue, which should be coming soon. Just a few more years (that's getting old fast).

[AndaliteBandit]

And sorry, the "You have sex, you risk having a child" is no more valid of an argument than "Sex is for making babies."

I didn't make that argument. I asked how will society benefit from men having the option of a 'financial abortion,' which would inevitably shift their financial burden to taxpayers instead?

[Fencers]

I'm not sure where you're getting that a stigma towards rape would carry over to shaming victims of rape.

A well reported and documented phenomenon.

Just a cursory search through various studies page 1:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...24499909552009
http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/5/3/366.short
http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early...07313529.short
http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/20/3/254.short
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb...aspx?id=107145
http://www.jstor.org/stable/42909686...n_tab_contents

The stigma would (and does) fall entirely on the perpetrators of rape.

I think perhaps you are speaking on a different subject or misinterpretation of my post. This does not make sense in reply.

What I was saying is that rape of males is not treated by the courts equally or reported equally because a social stigma exists that men can not be sexually assaulted or victims of abuse. Which is a nonsensical, outdated and factually incorrect notion; men can and are the victims of abuse just the same as children or women. The latter two socially we view more seriously which is again, bullshit.

That statement isn't really admirable. A society's moral compass and its laws aren't mutually exclusive from one another, and more often than not move in the same direction.

They need not. Historically, moral laws have undeserved societies- sometimes unilaterally. Where impartial and rational law making by rule serves all society.

We can bring equity in the severity and treatment of sexual assault under the law for all person without a component that abhors crime through emotion.

[May90]

I want the option to opt out. Every time I shoot someone with a gun, the moment the bullet leaves the barrel, I should be able to say, "I don't want to be a murderer", and walk away. The person is free to dodge the bullet, or (if they survive) to cover the medical fees at their own expense!

[THE Bigzoman]

I think perhaps you speaking on a different subject or misinterpretation of my post. This does not make sense in reply.

Confirmed.

10 char.

[Fencers]

I want the option to opt out. Every time I shoot someone with a gun, the moment the bullet leaves the barrel, I should be able to say, "I don't want to be a murderer", and walk away. The person is free to dodge the bullet, or (if they survive) to cover the medical fees at their own expense!

The law assumes that when you place a loaded gun to the head of another person and pull the trigger the intent is typically to kill. Some ambiguity exists in that guns have various uses and purposes- we have degrees of murder and manslaughter for a reason. However, you do inherently assumed a responsibility (and risk a charge) by firing a loaded gun at a person.

The law also assumes by inserting one's "gun" into a vagina and "firing", they risk a responsibility as well.

[May90]

The law assumes that when you place a loaded gun to the head of another person and pull the trigger the intent is typically to kill. Some ambiguity exists in that guns have various uses and purposes- we have degrees of murder and manslaughter for a reason. However, you do inherently assumed a responsibility (and risk a charge) by firing a loaded gun at a person.

The law also assumes by inserting one's "gun" into a vagina and "firing", they risk a responsibility as well.

Well, you can generalize it: for any action we take, we assume a (reasonable) responsibility. When a person does the activity which exists as a means of procreation, it would be strange to then try to ignore the responsibilities that come with procreation.

Maybe it should be different in case if all the anti-birth precautions were taken, but the pregnancy still happened. Then, one could argue that the company producing the anti-birth products should cover the expenses. But then, it is veeeeery hard to prove in the court what exactly took place in a private bedroom...

[Deleted]

No, it literally does not matter. The biological functions leading to pregnancy are divorced of want.

This is untrue and inconsistent with my posts herein; where I specifically said males are necessary to the process of creating a child.

If I had indeed ignored the male party then I could not argue for the their inclusion as a necessary and required component in pregnancy. Perhaps you misunderstood my posts or worded your own poorly. In either case, I will restate that males and females take an inherent risk by engaging in vaginal intercourse.

That would be foolish and ultimately harmful to my argument. This again either makes no sense as a counter argument offered by yourself or you have misunderstood my posts herein.

No one forces the man- unless he is the victim of a crime against his will or power.

By engaging in vaginal intercourse, both parties regardless of intent, are risking the conception of another human being. That human being once born is legally the charge of the conceiving parents unless absolved by the courts. The decision to go through with a birth is largely placed on the woman, as the sole and singular carrier of the potential baby the two made- regardless of intent, or want.

Typically the only way for a man to be forced into parentage is if they are sexually assaulted or abused in some manner. Which is a crime.

The courts get that one may not have intended to make a baby by using contraceptives, but by having vaginal intercourse the courts also assume one accepted the responsibility of those contraceptives failing. If another human being is the result of that failing, that onus is on the parents. Regardless of want.

I do not think that having sex is consenting to become a parent, no matter how you try to spin it.

I will restate that males and females take an inherent risk by engaging in vaginal intercourse.

This simply is not true, for a woman there is no risk of becoming a parent without them willing it so. There is a slight risk of a medical procedure, but that rarely happens when you are there in time and the situation can be handled with just a pill or two. The problem here is that the risk is far from being equal.

Your whole approach is only valid when you do not take contraception (that includes abortion) into this equation. The decision to have a birth is solely placed on a woman because off biology, and i do not see anyone argue against this. You can say that this is "regardless of intent or want" but that doesn't make it true. The only reason that this child is being born is because of the want of the mother.

You can not defend the rules by stating the rules, that is just not how it works. You can try to explain why something is, but the elephant in the room is not addressed. That this whole thing started might have been contraceptives failing, but, that there is a child has little to do with this. The fact that the mother has made the active decision that she would want this child makes this her decision and not failing contraceptives.

[Grimreaper]

The courts get that one may not have intended to make a baby by using contraceptives, but by having vaginal intercourse the courts also assume one accepted the responsibility of those contraceptives failing. If another human being is the result of that failing, that onus is on the parents. Regardless of want.

That doesnt really follow. A contraceptive is used to avoid getting her pregnant, the intent is to have vaginal intercourse without the risk of becoming a parent. Both parties have already agreed to NOT getting a child. It doesnt matter what either of them want (as you said), but they both agreed upon avoiding pregnancy as best they could. They both agreed with eachother to not become parents that night. No contraceptive is 100% failproof, not even vasectomy (yes, it can actually grow back in place on it's own).

Also, what about women taking blowjobs, then spitting the sperm out and stuffing it up their vagina? It has happened, and the man was forced into paying child support.

What about when both agree on pulling out in time, but one of them dont go through with it? Yes, it has happened that a woman refused to roll over, while the man screamed no. It was deemed rape and she got prison time. The man still had to pay shild support.

What about women poking holes in the condom? Has happened many times, the man always has to pay child support for the child he does not want.

What about women sexually assulting underage boys and concieving a child with them? Has happened, the boy still had to pay child support.

What about men who are absolutely blackout drunk, unable to consent to sex, gets raped by a woman. He still needs to pay child support.

[Witchblade77]

if you don't want to father children? use condoms. your own condoms. the ones that you bought and know that no one else has tampered with. learn how to use them properly. use them with all types of sex, including oral.

there is one instance where I think requiring dna donor to support a child is absolutely should not be a thing and that is in case when they are literal DNA donor. they didn't have sex with the mother, they likely haven't even met the mother, they just donated DNA. in cases where you have consensual sex and a child results from it? well... that's a possible consequence of sex, so when you chose to have sex, you have accepted that there might be consequences to that act. edited to add... second instance being rape.

and yes, yes, no contraception is 100% effective, well guess what.. you still chose to have sex. so that;s the consequences you need to accept.

[Dhrizzle]

I do not think that having sex is consenting to become a parent, no matter how you try to spin it.

Having sex is accepting the risk of becoming a parent. If you can't understand or accept that you shouldn't be having sex.

[Quibble]

No one forces the man

This is just false..

By engaging in vaginal intercourse, both parties regardless of intent, are risking the conception of another human being.

I understand there is a god damn risk.. But it is entirely irrelevent to this..

Before protected sex, BOTH parties, are in an agreement, that this intercourse, is not meant to produce a child.. If they didn't agree to this, they would either not have used protection, or they would not have had intercourse

Just because the birth control fails to work, does not suddenly give you the right to change your mind, and then force this choice on someone else..

My previous post stands.. you're completly ignoring the men, and only listen to the wants of the woman..

I find it sad, that you believe it is okay for one part of a previously understood agreement, to suddenly change their mind and force this new want on the other party.. Force them to something they never agreed to.

[Dhrizzle]

That doesnt really follow. A contraceptive is used to avoid getting her pregnant, the intent is to have vaginal intercourse without the risk of becoming a parent. Both parties have already agreed to NOT getting a child. It doesnt matter what either of them want (as you said), but they both agreed upon avoiding pregnancy as best they could. They both agreed with eachother to not become parents that night. No contraceptive is 100% failproof, not even vasectomy (yes, it can actually grow back in place on it's own).

Also, what about women taking blowjobs, then spitting the sperm out and stuffing it up their vagina? It has happened, and the man was forced into paying child support.

What about when both agree on pulling out in time, but one of them dont go through with it? Yes, it has happened that a woman refused to roll over, while the man screamed no. It was deemed rape and she got prison time. The man still had to pay shild support.

What about women poking holes in the condom? Has happened many times, the man always has to pay child support for the child he does not want.

What about women sexually assulting underage boys and concieving a child with them? Has happened, the boy still had to pay child support.

What about men who are absolutely blackout drunk, unable to consent to sex, gets raped by a woman. He still needs to pay child support.

Most of those cases involve some form of rape and I absolutely agree that a rape victim should not be forced to pay for the results of that crime.

However a lot of people are using these cases to argue for things like "legal" or "financial" abortions where a man who had consenting sex can wash his hands of the consequences and I can not agree with someone shirking their responsibilities in that way.

[Witchblade77]

This is just false..


I understand there is a god damn risk.. But it is entirely irrelevent to this..

Before protected sex, BOTH parties, are in an agreement, that this intercourse, is not meant to produce a child.. If they didn't agree to this, they would either not have used protection, or they would not have had intercourse

Just because the birth control fails to work, does not suddenly give you the right to change your mind, and then force this choice on someone else..

My previous post stands.. you're completly ignoring the men, and only listen to the wants of the woman..

I find it sad, that you believe it is okay for one part of a previously understood agreement, to suddenly change their mind and force this new want on the other party.. Force them to something they never agreed to.

jut becasue you are in agreement that you don't want something to happen, doesn't change the fact that it may happen anyways. this is what accepting consequences means. for instance. lets say you decide to have sex with someone who is HIV positive. you use protection, becasue you both agreed that you don't want to get infected. aforementioned protection fails for whatever reason and you get infected anyways. consequences! this is a chance you take.

[Azadina]

jut becasue you are in agreement that you don't want something to happen, doesn't change the fact that it may happen anyways. this is what accepting consequences means. for instance. lets say you decide to have sex with someone who is HIV positive. you use protection, becasue you both agreed that you don't want to get infected. aforementioned protection fails for whatever reason and you get infected anyways. consequences! this is a chance you take.

I think he means to say, that if you and I agree to not get charged for robbing a jewelry store, then the law is not allowed to charge us

Want to go get some jewelries?

[Quibble]

jut becasue you are in agreement that you don't want something to happen, doesn't change the fact that it may happen anyways. this is what accepting consequences means. for instance. lets say you decide to have sex with someone who is HIV positive. you use protection, becasue you both agreed that you don't want to get infected. aforementioned protection fails for whatever reason and you get infected anyways. consequences! this is a chance you take.

This isn't the same thing..

In one case, I personally take the risk and no one else is forcing me to do something I do not want..

In the other case, I take a risk of pregnancy, on the assumption that if that risk does turn out to happen, the other party, WHICH agreed with me to not concieve a child, would end that pregnancy...

Now instead, that person changes her mind and forced me into something I don't want.. the two situations are not the same.

[Darkeon]

jut becasue you are in agreement that you don't want something to happen, doesn't change the fact that it may happen anyways. this is what accepting consequences means. for instance. lets say you decide to have sex with someone who is HIV positive. you use protection, becasue you both agreed that you don't want to get infected. aforementioned protection fails for whatever reason and you get infected anyways. consequences! this is a chance you take.

Are you also in favor of shaming female rape victims for laying out the speech about consequences of getting drunk or what they wear on those late nights?

[Quibble]

Double post

[Dhrizzle]

This isn't the same thing..

In one case, I personally take the risk and no one else is forcing me to do something I do not want..

In the other case, I take a risk of pregnancy, on the assumption that if that risk does turn out to happen, the other party, WHICH agreed with me to not concieve a child, would end that pregnancy...

Now instead, that person changes her mind and forced me into something I don't want.. the two situations are not the same.

Firstly I have to ask, before intercourse do you get a confirmation (verbal or written) that if the contraception fails the woman will have the offspring terminated?

Secondly, even if you do get that agreement it is being made with the woman not knowing exactly how she'll react to being pregnant, some people make a strong emotional bond to the child they are carrying even in the earliest stages when the foetus could not be classed as a person. If that's the case it would be wrong to force that person to undergo a medical procedure and also wrong for the other parent not to live up to their responsibility to the child.

Basically the only way to avoid parenthood is to avoid sexual contact with the opposite sex.

[Fencers]

That doesnt really follow.

How so? No contraceptive prevents 100% of all pregnancies. There is usually a margin for error- and regardless of intent in using contraceptive; vaginal intercourse can lead to pregnancy. Which is the assumed risk and responsibility taken by inserting penises into vaginas.

It's the most straight forward thing; you can do this (have vaginal intercourse) but it could result in pregnancy. If you guys didn't intent on it, so by choosing to do it anyways whatever comes of it all is your responsibly in accepting the risk.

Also, what about women taking blowjobs, then spitting the sperm out and stuffing it up their vagina? It has happened, and the man was forced into paying child support.

That's a very unlikely scenario; at best, very edge case. It's actually pretty rare for semen to survive saliva in the mouth and insertion into the vagina from mouth requires a near gynecological spreading by the woman to deposit the semen just moments after ejaculation in the mouth. Similar to insemination via used condoms.

It can happen, you are correct. But it's very edge case for a woman to get pregnant by spitting up ejaculate from her mouth to insert in her vagina.

Nonetheless, one still entered into sexual intercourse with another- which carries a lot of risks in various ways. We accept such by having sex.

Simply put, sex can lead to pregnancy one way or another. Have to accept the outcomes according to the law.

What about when both agree on pulling out in time, but one of them dont go through with it?

Pulling out doesn't prevent pregnancy.

Yes, it has happened that a woman refused to roll over, while the man screamed no. It was deemed rape and she got prison time. The man still had to pay shild support.

Correct, because he accepted the risk of sex- unprotected sex at that.

What about women poking holes in the condom? Has happened many times, the man always has to pay child support for the child he does not want.

A risk of having sex. One has to accept the responsibly of such. Especially as agency in the contraceptive is willing placed on another- he is literally placing trust in the woman to be on the level with him w/r/t the condom.

What about women sexually assulting underage boys and concieving a child with them? Has happened, the boy still had to pay child support.

A crime. The Kansas and Florida courts that decided this case in US concluded that non-consent could not be determined in a case of statutory rape of a male.

What about men who are absolutely blackout drunk, unable to consent to sex, gets raped by a woman. He still needs to pay child support.

Rarely has happened. I could only find a few cases of such. And in those two cases the intent or delivery of non-consent was indeterminate.