"No means no!" but only for women

[Deleted]

But MeHMeH, the woman is still the passive part in any kind of intercourse. We have to act as if getting her pregnant is the fault of the man and at no point involved her. Because we will conveniently treat women as lesser human beings and non adults whenever it suits explaining away privileges and special protection they enjoy.

Yesh, men should sterilize themselves because society hates woman! Or something, im not entirely sure on how this exactly works, but according to some people here it is the way to go.

[Aggrophobic]

That's not what it comes down to at all. Especially if the man could opt out early on and the woman would then have to decide whether she wants to raise the child on her own or not. All you do that way is level the playing field and give both sides an equal choice in whether they want to be a parent or not. Right now you are holding one side hostage at gun point, taking their choice and say in the matter away solely to benefit the other side.

You talk about nature not being fair but ignore that if you want to go by nature, the man would not need to be involved at all if he didn't want to be. You are engaging in unnatural regulation to force him to. You're torpedoing your own argument here. Worse, you are basically calling the entire equality between genders faulty as you yourself say "nature isn't fair", which means the entire thing is a sham as male and female nature differ and thus it can't be achieved nor should be attempted to do so.

This is what irks me personally the most. You guys jump between "social constructs" and "nature" depending on topic argued so you can always argue in favour of whatever you like even though you often end up contradicting yourself at times such as here in this thread on the same topic.


But MeHMeH, the woman is still the passive part in any kind of intercourse. We have to act as if getting her pregnant is the fault of the man and at no point involved her. Because we will conveniently treat women as lesser human beings and non adults whenever it suits explaining away privileges and special protection they enjoy.

If she can't afford to raise a child you're forcing her to get an abortion, yes.
You want to move the choice from the woman to the man. We'd be in the same situation only it would benefint you more.

In the end, you're just being egoistic. Like one of your pals in this thread said: I want responsibility when I want responsibility.
Life is going to hit you guys like a freight train once you get out into the world.

[kingj56]

i loled so hard reading this. I LOVE THIS FORUM!!! But men pay child support because the mother is already caring for the child giving her time and resources while the guy just gives resources based on his income and other factors. Morally it is irresponsible for 2 people to make a person then one to just be "fuck that im out" leaving a person to group disadvantaged with one person doing ALL the work. Leaves a child financially and not to mention emotionally insecure. You cant make a woman get an abortion legally, the best thing to do is to keep it in your pants. Wear a rubber and if it breaks sue the condom making company. AT LEAST if you gonna fuck make sure its someone you wouldnt mind having to see in court every now and then. Lastly, stop letting hard dick make decisions for you. It can fuck up your life, dicks are dumb so be sure to not let it think for you.

[Flarelaine]

Dude, have you lost your marbles? This is about a gross difference in how we treat men and women when it comes to reproductive rights and responsibilities. If your argument is use a condom to avoid getting her pregnant, it should also be make him wear a condom to avoid getting pregnant as otherwise you failed and aren't entitled to either an abortion or financial support.

It's a non argument.

If I want to avoid getting someone pregnant, I make sure to use a condom. Still no more to it. The whole thread is a storm in a bucket. There is a perfectly easy way of avoiding unwanted consequences. Throwing a shitstorm about who should bear the burden of contraception just complicates the situation needlessly.

[Dhrizzle]

She isn't forced to have sex.

I was talking about abortions.

That is a pretty obtuse thing to say, they both prevent pregnancies, so they are used for exactly the same thing.

Abortions do not prevent pregnancies, they end them. It bus a distinct difference.

And you are assuming that an abortion has negative consequences, which is just as incorrect. This is very subjective, some woman will have problems because of it, others do not.

Which is why you shouldn't enter a sexual relationship assuming that an abortion will happen if contraception fails.

Woman should not have sex when they do not want to have an abortion if an accidental pregnancy occurs. This is the only place where breach of contract is seen as a good thing, it is ludicrous. And the rest is a personal attack as usual.

I'm not entirely sure that contracts obliging people to undergo medical procedures are legal. Perhaps you could get a declaration that your partner would be willing and able to raise the child on her own if pregnancy occurs, though again that may not be binding as the most affected party (the child) would have no say in the matter.

I'm sorry if you consider that a personal attack, I was trying to help you understand the reality of the matter and how you could mitigate any risks.

[Deleted]

If she can't afford to raise a child you're forcing her to get an abortion, yes.
You want to move the choice from the woman to the man. We'd be in the same situation only it would benefint you more.

In the end, you're just being egoistic. Like one of your pals in this thread said: I want responsibility when I want responsibility.
Life is going to hit you guys like a freight train once you get out into the world.

If she can't affort a child then she should not be having sex, that is exactly the thing you keep telling males to do.

And you talking about him being egoistic is just laughable, the only one being egoistic here is you. That bit about responsibility was me, and you are misquoting, because after that it mentioned, Just like woman have now. So according to you it is egoistic to want to have equality.

- - - Updated - - -

I was talking about abortions.

Yes, she won't need an abortion if she doesn't have sex.

Abortions do not prevent pregnancies, they end them. It bus a distinct difference.

But it is a very, very small difference, as they are used for the exact same goal. So all in all, yea it is the same thing.

Which is why you shouldn't enter a sexual relationship assuming that an abortion will happen if contraception fails.

Now you are assuming it will be bad again, stop assuming it is a bad thing by default.

I'm not entirely sure that contracts obliging people to undergo medical procedures are legal. Perhaps you could get a declaration that your partner would be willing and able to raise the child on her own if pregnancy occurs, though again that may not be binding as the most affected party (the child) would have no say in the matter.

Im not sure either what contract will allow you to enslave a person for 18 years. It is not about what is best for the child, it has never been about what is best for the child. It is about what is best for the mother. If you want to have what is best for the child then you will have to give it up for adoption as soon as it is born. Having two loving parents that can afford to take care of it is what is best for the child, a stable home.

I'm sorry if you consider that a personal attack, I was trying to help you understand the reality of the matter and how you could mitigate any risks.

You should not have sex if you do not want this or that to happen is an attack. ( i know i started to post with this, but this is something that has been said to many times to count towards men) Saying that it is trying to help me understand the reality is rather insulting too, but that is besides the point. People here know and understand fully well what the reality is, and we say it sucks for very good reasons.

[Aggrophobic]

If she can't affort a child then she should not be having sex, that is exactly the thing you keep telling males to do.

And you talking about him being egoistic is just laughable, the only one being egoistic here is you. That bit about responsibility was me, and you are misquoting, because after that it mentioned, Just like woman have now. So according to you it is egoistic to want to have equality.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, she won't need an abortion if she doesn't have sex.


But it is a very, very small difference, as they are used for the exact same goal. So all in all, yea it is the same thing.


Now you are assuming it will be bad again, stop assuming it is a bad thing by default.



Im not sure either what contract will allow you to enslave a person for 18 years. It is not about what is best for the child, it has never been about what is best for the child. It is about what is best for the mother. If you want to have what is best for the child then you will have to give it up for adoption as soon as it is born. Having two loving parents that can afford to take care of it is what is best for the child, a stable home.



You should not have sex if you do not want this or that to happen is an attack. Saying that it is trying to help me understand the reality is rather insulting too, but that is besides the point. People here know and understand fully well what the reality is, and we say it sucks for very good reasons.

But you said the was "unfair" to men if they has to stay away from sex just to avoid being a parent.
But it's ok if the woman has to avoid sex?

[Deleted]

But you said the was "unfair" to men if they has to stay away from sex just to avoid being a parent.
But it's ok if the woman has to avoid sex?

There is more choice for woman then there is for men. And why is it that it is not okay for woman not to have sex if they do not want something but it is for males??

[Deleted]

If she can't afford to raise a child you're forcing her to get an abortion, yes.
You want to move the choice from the woman to the man. We'd be in the same situation only it would benefint you more.

1. Absolutely not. If she can't afford the child she shouldn't have it but she's still completely free to have it. Nobody is forcing her to abort it. She merely couldn't force others into paying for it. You're giving her free choice, then you also hand her the choice of others and then some more. Not based on logic or reason but solely based on "POOOOOOOOOOR WOOOOOMAN, MUUUUUUST PROOOOOTECT!".
2. No, I absolutely don't. I merely object to either side making choices for the other side. I want both sides to be allowed to make their own choice. You are being dishonest here by pretending that if you gave the man a choice solely for himself you'd keep women from making a choice of their own. The opposite of her having all the decision making power isn't him being able to opt out. It would be the father being allowed to decide whether she is going to have the child or not. If he could FORCE HER to have it. That isn't what I'm advocating at all.

In the end, you're just being egoistic.

Not an argument. Just attempted character assasination. Giving both sides equal choice isn't being egoistic. Trying to force people to take responsibility for someone else's choice and holding them hostage at gun point to satisfy your own ideological beliefs meanwhile is egoistic.

Like one of your pals in this thread said

You can stuff your guilt by association, I have no pals in this thread.

Life is going to hit you guys like a freight train once you get out into the world.

Not an argument, once again merely attempted character assasination.

That does not sound forcing to me. That sounds like guy doesn't think at all and expects good life afterwards. I mean "Oh well, I got drunk - it happens ^^" is an excuse for dumb people to do shits where they see fit because it's easier to not think at all. He could say easily "No" to the drinks and there would be no problems but oh! He won't be cool anymore, right? /sigh

Okay so what you're saying is. Women aren't ever raped when drunk. It's just them being dumb and shirking responsibility for their actions and they could've easily said they don't want to have another drink. Is that really what you're going for? Really?

You also conveniently ignored everything else that has been said.

If I want to avoid getting someone pregnant, I make sure to use a condom. Still no more to it. The whole thread is a storm in a bucket. There is a perfectly easy way of avoiding unwanted consequences. Throwing a shitstorm about who should bear the burden of contraception just complicates the situation needlessly.

If I want to avoid getting pregnant, I make sure to make him use a condom. Still no more to it. The whole abortion thing is a storm in a bucket. There is a perfectly easy way of avoiding unwanted consequences. Throwing a shitstorm about who should bear the burden of abortion just complicates the situation needlessly.

I guess we should outlaw abortion according to your own argumentation and sound logic!

[Flarelaine]

If I want to avoid getting someone pregnant, I make sure to use a condom. Still no more to it. The whole thread is a storm in a bucket. There is a perfectly easy way of avoiding unwanted consequences. Throwing a shitstorm about who should bear the burden of contraception just complicates the situation needlessly.

If I want to avoid getting pregnant, I make sure to make him use a condom. Still no more to it. The whole abortion thing is a storm in a bucket. There is a perfectly easy way of avoiding unwanted consequences. Throwing a shitstorm about who should bear the burden of abortion just complicates the situation needlessly.

I guess we should outlaw abortion according to your own argumentation and sound logic!

I doubt I even mentioned abortion in my post. I don't fucking care what the woman does for contraception as long as I'm wearing a condom. Can you do better than parroting?

[Deleted]

I doubt I even mentioned abortion in my post. I don't fucking care what the woman does for contraception as long as I'm wearing a condom. Can you do better than parroting?

Condoms do NOT have a 100% prevention rate, condoms can both fail and be sabotaged, either side using contraceptives or not and "you not caring" does not influence a gross difference in how both genders are treated where rights and responsibilities are concerned. None of this has anything to do with parroting either, it has to do with you simply NOT HAVING AN ARGUMENT FOR ANYTHING YOU'RE SAYING.

[Deleted]

character assasination.

Thank you! I could never find the correct words to describe this, i have learned something today

[Aggrophobic]

There is more choice for woman then there is for men. And why is it that it is not okay for woman not to have sex if they do not want something but it is for males??

Oh, but it's not like it's free to raise a child even with payments from an absent father.
You're talking like women do this for financial gains.

You can both choose to not have sex. You're both very equal in this regard.
But if you do have sex and the outcome is a child you both have to pay. It's as equal as it gets.

[Deleted]

Oh, but it's not like it's free to raise a child even with payments from an absent father.
You're talking like women do this for financial gains.

You can both choose to not have sex. You're both very equal in this regard.
But if you do have sex and the outcome is a child you both have to pay. It's as equal as it gets.

Why would the mother not be free to raise a child without the financial support of a father? I don't know what their incentives would be, but i do know that the male will have a hard time starting a family of his own while having to pay for something that he did not want.

You can both choose not to have sex, it is just that the woman can choose when to become a parent, and the father cant.

[Flarelaine]

Condoms do NOT have a 100% prevention rate, condoms can both fail and be sabotaged, either side using contraceptives or not and "you not caring" does not influence a gross difference in how both genders are treated where rights and responsibilities are concerned. None of this has anything to do with parroting either, it has to do with you simply NOT HAVING AN ARGUMENT FOR ANYTHING YOU'RE SAYING.

Condoms may not have a 100% prevention rate, but condoms are the method I can use to make my contribution and they are good enough for me. I never wore one for being told to; I chose to. Sabotage? Why go to bed with someone you do not trust? And why should I have an argument for refusing to take part in your hysteria? I just do not.
There is also a "gross difference in how both genders are treated where rights and responsibilities are concerned" and women fare much worse. Why should I saddle one with this on top of everything?

[Fencers]

Again, you can not defend a rule by stating a rule.

Stating the rule does not mean I am defending the rule. Further, how you feel about the rule doesn't change it either.

This is false, abortion is 100%, that is the entire point.

Abortion is not a contraceptive. Contraceptive reduce risk of pregnancy.

Your notion is totally illogical. For one to have an abortion, they must first be pregnant.

Because people like you do not want it to be equal.

Biology and human ethics do not allow it to be equal.

Yes it very much is, it completely removes any and all pregnancy's

Contraceptives prevent pregnancy. Abortion is not a contraceptive.

Yes it does, abortion is a full guarantee zero risk of pregnancy.

Totally illogical. So much so, I would guess you either are ignorant of the definition of contraceptive or are using some debased form of the word to serve your argument.

Otherwise it is logically impossible for what you are saying to be true.

And you are simply forgetting that abortion is a thing, you might not like it, it is far from ideal, but it is still a choice.

If one had an abortion there is nothing to discuss- the point is moot. So it is not germane to the discussion.

Also we can not force people to have abortions.

The decision to engage in sex carries risk of parentage. That is inherent in the action according to the law and society.

Yea that is cute, but you again completely dismiss the active choice the woman has, again you fail to calculate abortions into this.

Again, nothing to discuss. If an abortion takes place there is no point to the debate- termination of pregnancy occurred presumably. Otherwise, we can not force abortion on others.

Again, stating law isn't a defence of said law. Again, it is 100% the womans choice to become that parent, the male has no choice what so ever.

Defense is not needed or attempted. I am telling you how this stuff works in the US- whether you like or are in ignorance of the operation is your prerogative.

[Aggrophobic]

1. Absolutely not. If she can't afford the child she shouldn't have it but she's still completely free to have it. Nobody is forcing her to abort it. She merely couldn't force others into paying for it. You're giving her free choice, then you also hand her the choice of others and then some more. Not based on logic or reason but solely based on "POOOOOOOOOOR WOOOOOMAN, MUUUUUUST PROOOOOTECT!".
2. No, I absolutely don't. I merely object to either side making choices for the other side. I want both sides to be allowed to make their own choice. You are being dishonest here by pretending that if you gave the man a choice solely for himself you'd keep women from making a choice of their own. The opposite of her having all the decision making power isn't him being able to opt out. It would be the father being allowed to decide whether she is going to have the child or not. If he could FORCE HER to have it. That isn't what I'm advocating at all.


Not an argument. Just attempted character assasination. Giving both sides equal choice isn't being egoistic. Trying to force people to take responsibility for someone else's choice and holding them hostage at gun point to satisfy your own ideological beliefs meanwhile is egoistic.

You can stuff your guilt by association, I have no pals in this thread.

Not an argument, once again merely attempted character assasination.


Okay so what you're saying is. Women aren't ever raped when drunk. It's just them being dumb and shirking responsibility for their actions and they could've easily said they don't want to have another drink. Is that really what you're going for? Really?

You also conveniently ignored everything else that has been said.


If I want to avoid getting pregnant, I make sure to make him use a condom. Still no more to it. The whole abortion thing is a storm in a bucket. There is a perfectly easy way of avoiding unwanted consequences. Throwing a shitstorm about who should bear the burden of abortion just complicates the situation needlessly.

I guess we should outlaw abortion according to your own argumentation and sound logic!

"Character assasination"? You handle that part very well yourself by the way your acting here.

It's your choice to take part in an act that might lead to a child being born. You simply have to deal with the fact that you have to take responsibility for your own actions.

Forcing someone to go through an abortion becuase you don't care or simply don't know how a condom works in not "character assasination". It's just you being selfish, spoiled and cruel as fuck.

[Raelbo]

The people that were saying that have no problem being hypocrites and saying a man having sex means you want to have a child.

Except I've never seen people making this argument. Because no one is that stupid. That's like saying that people who get behind the wheel of car want to have a collision. There is a world of difference between wanting to have a child and accepting that pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex.

[Darkeon]

Time to ban abortions.
Then we'll have equality.

Don't want kids? Don't have sex. Well, responsibility isn't a one way street, ladies.

-

And yeah, it'll still suck for the poor men that get the short end of the stick; But then again, can't get any more lower than how we have it nowadays. This simply means the other gender has some responsibility on the reproductive department for a change.

[Deleted]

Stating the rule does not mean I am defending the rule. Further, how you feel about the rule doesn't change it either.

Yes, you where defending it by stating what the rules where, because, we know what the rules are and we are saying that the rules are wrong.

Abortion is not a contraceptive. Contraceptive reduce risk of pregnancy.

Their goal is the same, stop babies from being born.

You notion is totally illogical. For one to have an abortion, they must first be pregnant.

Yes, but they are done to achieve the same thing, no babies.

Biology and human ethics do not allow it to be equal.

If you want to argue biology then you will have a very hard time as males would not have to be there after the sex. The "ethics" part in this is a none issue, these "ethics" have been changed many many times.

Contraceptives prevent pregnancy. Abortion is not a contraceptive.

But they are both used to not become a parent, this is semantics.

Totally illogical. So much so, I would guess you either are ignorant of the definition of contraceptive or are using some debased form of the word to serve your argument.

Otherwise it is logically impossible for what you are saying to be true.

They are both used to try and make sure that you won't become a parent, abortion is just full proof.

IF one had an abortion there is nothing to discuss- the point is moot. So it is not germane to the discussion.

And we can not force people to have abortions.

The decision to engage in sex carries risk of parentage. That is inherent in the action according to the law and society.

That is still the one full proof way of avoiding becoming a parent. We are not forcing anyone to do anything, the only one who wants to use force is your group. They are the ones that want to jail people who do not pay for something that they did not want.
Having a financial abortion would not force a woman to do anything, god forbid we force a woman to do anything like we do on males, it only gives males the freedom to become a parent when they choose to be a parent, just like woman can right now.

Again, nothing to discuss. If an abortion takes place there is no point to the debate- termination of pregnancy occurred presumably.

Otherwise, we can not force abortion on others

.

Then there is nothing to discuss because the woman doesn't want there to be something to be discussed, she aborted it. I'm not saying she should not be able to do that, im saying that this is a full sure way of preventing becoming a parent.

Defense is not needed or attempted. I am telling you how this stuff works in the US- whether you like or are in ignorance of the operation is your prerogative.

And you end, again, with defending a stance by stating the rules, that is not how it works. I know how it works, and im explaining why it is wrong.