"No means no!" but only for women

[THE Bigzoman]

It's really simple. These guys need to go to legalzoom.com and put together an air-tight 'love contract' a la The Chappelle Show. Any woman that signs on the dotted line, they can treat as shabbily as they desire. The good news is, they'll only ever need one copy, and it will never be contested in court.

- - - Updated - - -



There certainly are, with some caveats. When it comes to dick, it's a buyer's market. The supply FAR outstrips the demand, and this goes across orientations. So, the batshit crazy girl will still have a line of dudes waiting to bang her out so long as her standards are reasonably low.

The thing is, this specific segment of guys is basically saying, "I am ONLY here for me. Your wants, needs, and desires are of no concern to me. Further, I'm a cheap bastard, and if something undesirable happens, well, that's on you. Lastly, I have zero empathy for anything that is outside of my experience. So, not only will you be the only one with anything at risk, but due to my basic personality and shocking lack of experience, I am almost guaranteed to be a terrible lover."

That's a pretty tough sell for anyone, let alone forums heroes.

The availbility of choices doesn't imply. by itself, the rational application of said choice.

Plenty of women fuck deadbeats, to be frank.

[bergmann620]

When men can get pregnant.... That is such a stupid argument, if you want to argue biology isn't fair then males would have nothing to do with unwanted offspring, not their body, not their problem. What you seem to be forgetting is the fact that the whole paying child support IS one of the special treatments given to females. If you can not afford to have a child you should not become pregnant.

It's not 'woman support'.... It's CHILD SUPPORT.

So you think that this woman should be able to act irresponsible and have the nation pay for her children, excellent logic. Again, you can not blame the male for a female that wants children.

No, I think that the nation doesn't have to pay if the father does. Again, women don't spontaneously get pregnant.

Maybe not sex ed, but definitely logic 101, the only thing he does is take your argument and change the sex. You are saying that abortions should not be needed because they had sex and should be responsible.

In an ideal world, abortions wouldn't be needed. In our world, they are. Further, there is only one sex that has the burden of carrying a pregnancy to term, the burden of childbirth...

The father had nothing to do with the choice to have children, that is all on the mother. The mother made a choice to have a kid, that is always 100% intended.

You can, and in fact, this happens rather often, not want to get pregnant, and yet, know that if you do, you will keep the child. It's the kind of thing women have to think about, seeing as they're the only ones that can get pregnant.

Responsibility is not contingent on intentionality. Period. You can't say, "Well, I didn't INTEND to get in a car accident!" If you accidentally shoot someone, that doesn't give you any say regarding their treatment. You can't be like, "Well, just have the bullet removed- that will be cheaper for me." You get NO SAY.

Having sex is like entering traffic- it opens you up to liability. Chances are, nothing goes wrong. If something does, though, you are liable.

- - - Updated - - -

The availbility of choices doesn't imply. by itself, the rational application of said choice.

Plenty of women fuck deadbeats, to be frank.

They certainly do. That said, those deadbeats usually at least have the social acumen to not be like, "Hey- I'm a deadbeat. Still wanna fuck?"

[Dispraise]

The good news is, they'll only ever need one copy, and it will never be contested in court.

See, that's the rub, though. Child support should have nothing to do with the woman. It doesn't matter what agreements you've made with her. It's not for her.

If the topic were about logical reforms to the system to reduce abuses, give fathers more rights and better access to their children, etc. I'd be all for it. Hell, if it were about allocating more public funding into male birth control, to allow them better options for reproductive health that are in their own hands, I'd be all for it. But it's not. It's about supposed adults who are allergic to the concepts of forethought and personal responsibility, throwing a tantrum because their sister got a lolly and they didn't.

[Tatsujin]

Men are expected to always not do something when women say no but when women wants to do something against a mans will, like forcing men to become parents, why doessn't mens no matter in that case? Surely it should be respected when men say they don't want to be forced to become parents?

It's a man's responsibility to take care of the kid and the woman, if he doesn't want the woman that's fine but the kid needs to be taken care of financially and they must be under his care, provided that the man is a MAN, not a wuss.

In-depth philosophy - a man impregnates a woman, yeah that's your responsibility, that's your kid.

As for women, they gotta take care of the child and be nice to them and be respectful to the man as well (and via versa). But well, what can I say ... boyfriends and girlfriends and those who want to have sex and WHOPS she's pregnant. Have they met each other parents yet?

Anyways, everyone does things differently and we're all unique. No one is perfect. -shrugs-

[Mistame]

There IS such thing as entrapment, and there ARE females out there who are bitch enough to do that.

Surely you jest! I mean, women are such perfect and innocent creatures. Besides, THINK OF TEH CHILRINZ!

A situation where you "do everything right" and "someone manipulates the outcome" ... that's a hypothetical horror. How often is that genuinely, verifiably happening? In situations like statutory rape, the simple answer is to push for changes to the law that further protect the minor.

I can personally attest to attempts at such "horrors" on multiple occasions. I've had a woman who'd previous had a partial hysterectomy claim to have tubal pregnancy and threaten to have it transplanted to a surrogate. I've had the sister of a girl I was seeing pull our spent condom out of a trash can in an attempt to "baste" a baby out of jealousy. In both scenarios, I would have been "legally" responsible, according to current law. Why? Because I "donated the sperm". Then there's my current "daughter", whom I did not know was not biologically mine until about 2 years after she was born (turns out I actually can't have kids). Even if I'd fought against the child support, I would have lost because of the way the laws are written. Note, I didn't fight because I still treat her like my own and want to maintain the relationship.

And there's other situations:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/justic...perm-donation/
http://wgno.com/2016/07/28/colorado-...-test-results/
http://www.theroot.com/articles/news...or_child_that/

And while none of these may be exactly the extreme situations we're discussion, they're still complete and utter bullshit and are indicative of a fatal flaw in the system. One that's heavily biased against men all because either his sperm was or was assumed to be involved. The "but the child(ren)" arguments are drivel.

It is going to end up in court or in an administrative hearing. That simply isn't going to generate the result you seem to be hoping for and it is going to generate another layer of expensive and time consuming administrative stuff to go along with things like DCFS. That's not going to help anyone except the people who get jobs out of it.

And that's their job. Surely you're not so naive to think that the courts, government, etc, would actually do anything to save money. Quite the opposite, in fact.

It's a man's responsibility to take care of the kid and the woman, if he doesn't want the woman that's fine but the kid needs to be taken care of financially and they must be under his care, provided that the man is a MAN, not a wuss.

Psh. The 50's called. I won't even date a woman who's not self-sufficient. I'm looking for a partner, not a dependent.

[shadowmouse]

And that's their job. Surely you're not so naive to think that the courts, government, etc, would actually do anything to save money.

I have a mild familiarity with the US court system and administrative hearings. Saying something is their job is naive. You are complaining about the state of law, while proposing a system that cannot work better because of problems of proof. There is an old saying, an elephant is a mouse built to government specifications. You're talking about taking the current batch of laws and rules about paternity and child support and adding yet another set of hearings. Hearings take the father's time and probably mean hiring a lawyer.

The Kansas case you refer to ... aside from being Kansas (the law's equivalent of Florida Man), he tried to do things without taking the proper legal steps:

But under Kansas law, he is her father. Had a physician carried out the insemination, that would not be the case, because Marotta would be able to document that he was a sperm donor and not the lover of the girl's mother, CNN senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen said.
"For all they know, they were lovers," she said. "They need that documentation. He's the dad; he ought to be paying up."

The Colorado case is another example of amateur hour in court:

After Atkins learned the truth, he tried to submit the DNA test to an Arapahoe County judge, but the family law judge refused to accept the evidence because Atkins, who represented himself at the time, didn’t know the legal rules for submitting evidence.

When Atkins came back later with an attorney, his appeal was denied because the judge said he had already been given his opportunity to submit the DNA results.

Note the lawyer was there for an appeal, that means the case had already been heard and resolved.

The Detroit case is an injustice, but it highlights the problems of expecting the courts to be able to sort things out. In this case, the court has a record that he was given notice and beyond that there is little way to go back to years to reconstruct what happened. Courts are bound by rules and law:

“I am outraged that Mr. Alexander for two-and-a-half decades failed to take this matter seriously,” said Michigan Circuit Judge Kathleen McCarthy, ABC 7 reports.

That's exactly the kind of thing that I'm thinking when I say that an extra layer of hearings and proof isn't going to make things better, it will make them worse.

I can personally attest to attempts at such "horrors" on multiple occasions.

I'm sure nobody on the Internet would pull my leg on such things, so I'd have to say ... you really need to work on who you partner up with. Since you seem to be drawing language from the articles you linked; however, I'd say the lesson is not the state of the law but rather the failure of lay persons to consult a lawyer when they should.

The "but the child(ren)" arguments are drivel.

No. You're free to disagree with them, but the point is valid. The child had no choice in the circumstances of their birth.

[Deleted]

thought threads like this werent allowed on mmoc

[Deleted]

It's not 'woman support'.... It's CHILD SUPPORT.

No, it is a woman support. What is "best for the child" has absolutely nothing to do with this at all.

No, I think that the nation doesn't have to pay if the father does. Again, women don't spontaneously get pregnant.

The father does what?? All he did was have sex. The child is a choice of the woman.

In an ideal world, abortions wouldn't be needed. In our world, they are. Further, there is only one sex that has the burden of carrying a pregnancy to term, the burden of childbirth...

Burden or not, it is still a choice to become a parent or not for the mother, her choice, her responsibility.

You can, and in fact, this happens rather often, not want to get pregnant, and yet, know that if you do, you will keep the child. It's the kind of thing women have to think about, seeing as they're the only ones that can get pregnant.

Responsibility is not contingent on intentionality. Period. You can't say, "Well, I didn't INTEND to get in a car accident!" If you accidentally shoot someone, that doesn't give you any say regarding their treatment. You can't be like, "Well, just have the bullet removed- that will be cheaper for me." You get NO SAY.

Having sex is like entering traffic- it opens you up to liability. Chances are, nothing goes wrong. If something does, though, you are liable.

That does not make it any less of a choice.

Person 1 wants something.
Person 2 makes it accidentally possible for person 1 to get the thing they want.
You are blaming person 2 for what person 1 wanted and say that person 2 should pay for the wants of person 1.

Nothing went wrong here, there is nothing to be liable for.

They certainly do. That said, those deadbeats usually at least have the social acumen to not be like, "Hey- I'm a deadbeat. Still wanna fuck?"

Deadbeats??? They are deadbeats because they do not want to become a parent!? The only one who is being irresponsible here is the woman for having children she can not support, that is the deadbeat.

[SherriMayim]

When men can get pregnant, they'll have the right to abortion or adoption. You seem to really struggle with the concept of asymmetrical rights and/or abilities. Do you feel that it is right and correct to give women special treatment to compensate for their biological shortcomings? (Do you think women who cannot pass mens' physical training standards should be allowed to participate in combat or be frontline firefighters or police?)

This is actually a really interesting argument, the first you've made!

If we are to say that men and women should be tasked the same labor for the same amount of pay then yes they should be equal to the amount of work.

Now the curious notion is applicability for employment. Police do call for physical ability, its why a lot of morbidly obese people don't usually apply for the job. Sure they may get fat after getting the job and become a desk jockey but for the most part they do not pass Police Training.

While weight isn't really a male or female thing as negatively affects both sexes. I think your point is that 'There should be special extenuating circumstances based on sex.'

Back to your main point, (I just really love that topic and it's an intriguing one at that. Good job!)

If I was calling for 1to1 equality I would be stating that a man should have the right to abort the baby just as much as a woman does. 1 to 1 Equality would be him saying 'I don't want the baby' and being able to, without her knowledge or discretion, have it terminated.

I'm not calling for 1 to 1 equality, I'm calling for the ability for a man to actively remove himself from Fatherhood based on his liberties as a human being.

Just because someone consents to sex doesn't mean they consent to parenthood.

Just because someone consents to alcohol doesn't mean they consent to sexual assault.

Just because someone consents to looting a legendary from a Mythic Dungeon doesn't mean they consent to Hardcore Raiding.

;D

So you don't think the man responsible for impregnation should be on the hook, but the rest of the nation should be. Excellent logic.

1. It takes a village to raise a child. Literally and figuratively.

2. Unless the woman was raped then she's just as responsible for the pregnancy, the only difference is that she has all rights to terminate it and not have to live with it if she so chooses.

Maybe I missed that day in sex ed? Do mens' ankles swell when the women they've knocked up don't abort?

No but aborting children would prevent swollen ankles and shrinking wallets.

...Because that child would not exist if not for the father's contribution. This is a damn simple concept.

...See now you're getting into an INCREDIBLY complex theory that involves realities.

Does the sperm or the egg determine personality?

Are sperm and eggs identical?

I don't think they can be because if they were then all brothers would look exactly alike.

So is it the sperm or the egg which delivers more genetic information to create the child.

Say there's two realities.

Reality 1:

Woman A has sex with Man B, Child C is born.

Reality 2:

Woman A has sex with Man D, would Child C be born or would it be Child D?

They have different genetic compositions but which genetic information does a child take from most?!

To summarize.

That child may CERTAINLY have existed if the woman copulated with another man.

There are dozens or hundreds of scenarios in life in which you do not intend a thing, but that thing happens anyways. In basically every instance, if your actions cause even an unintended negative externality for someone else, you are legally obligated to 'make them whole'.

Here's where I happily agree with you, even if it was an unintended use of words.

Children are a negative externality. We should abort them en masse. ...at least for a few years to let the Earth normalize it's population.

[Deleted]

Why does an mmo video game board keep talking about issues which arent relevant to them, most people who post on here are shut ins with thousands of posts.

Why do people keep making comments that assume the rest of MMO is like themselves?

[Tatsujin]

Psh. The 50's called. I won't even date a woman who's not self-sufficient. I'm looking for a partner, not a dependent.

There you go. Self-sufficient, someone who can work with you. That much I can agree with but read over what I said, if a man doesn't want the woman then that's fine. But the kids are a different story.

[bergmann620]

See, that's the rub, though. Child support should have nothing to do with the woman. It doesn't matter what agreements you've made with her. It's not for her.

If the topic were about logical reforms to the system to reduce abuses, give fathers more rights and better access to their children, etc. I'd be all for it. Hell, if it were about allocating more public funding into male birth control, to allow them better options for reproductive health that are in their own hands, I'd be all for it. But it's not. It's about supposed adults who are allergic to the concepts of forethought and personal responsibility, throwing a tantrum because their sister got a lolly and they didn't.

A-fucking-men. Agree 1000%. This is the MRA version of Pro-lifers screaming about murdered babies rather than taking logical steps to reduce the demand for abortion.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it is a woman support. What is "best for the child" has absolutely nothing to do with this at all.

Hah. Now that we've established that facts play no part in your arguments, let's carry on.

The father does what?? All he did was have sex. The child is a choice of the woman.

And the father chose to have sex knowing that a pregnancy could result. You want to start keeping score the second after the man blows his load, and that's fine as an opinion. Luckily, that opinion is not shared by the law or society-at-large.

Burden or not, it is still a choice to become a parent or not for the mother, her choice, her responsibility.

Yes, she certainly is responsible. Alas, we only have one 'recorded' case of immaculate conception. So long as a woman isn't carrying the baby Jesus in her womb, the father is also responsible.

That does not make it any less of a choice.

Person 1 wants something.
Person 2 makes it accidentally possible for person 1 to get the thing they want.
You are blaming person 2 for what person 1 wanted and say that person 2 should pay for the wants of person 1.

Nothing went wrong here, there is nothing to be liable for.

You have to establish that the woman secretly wants to get pregnant for your scenario to even be viable. We've already established that pregnancy through fraud should be a crime.

Deadbeats??? They are deadbeats because they do not want to become a parent!? The only one who is being irresponsible here is the woman for having children she can not support, that is the deadbeat.

They are deadbeats if they desire to engage in an act which has a known possible outcome, yet they refuse to assume any responsibility for that possible outcome. Like I've said elsewhere... I'd support the idea of a 'Love Contract'... I just would love to see the 'successful bedding' rate of anyone that was that upfront regarding their myopic view of pregnancy.

[Spectral]

They are deadbeats if they desire to engage in an act which has a known possible outcome, yet they refuse to assume any responsibility for that possible outcome. Like I've said elsewhere... I'd support the idea of a 'Love Contract'... I just would love to see the 'successful bedding' rate of anyone that was that upfront regarding their myopic view of pregnancy.

In addition to this, there's the obvious matter of the actual existence of the child. What kind of low empathy, narcissistic man-child is well aware that they have a son or daughter and says, "whatever, that's not my problem"? That this is a remotely condonable path to take is a sign of serious moral degeneracy on the part of many of our posters. Even if someone didn't want a child in the first place, being a father shouldn't be something to shun.

[Deleted]

A-fucking-men. Agree 1000%. This is the MRA version of Pro-lifers screaming about murdered babies rather than taking logical steps to reduce the demand for abortion.

You seem to be very clueless about this subject, first off, this is nothing like the MRA version of Pro-lifers. This isn't about "taking logical steps to reduce the demand for abortion". This is about when none of these "logical steps" where successful and where the female decided she wanted a baby.

As i stated in my last post to you...

Person 1 wants something.
Person 2 made this possible by accident.

You want to hold person 2 responsible for what person 1 decided to do. This would not be seen as "fair" in any other situation, but now this is somehow "fair" because "vagina". If you want a child as a female that is fine as long as you can take care of it, the difference here is that males can't do this, that is the "biological perk" so to speak, the difference. But she should not be able to hold a male hostage because she wanted this to happen.

[bergmann620]

I think your point is that 'There should be special extenuating circumstances based on sex.'

That's the exact opposite of my point.

If I was calling for 1to1 equality I would be stating that a man should have the right to abort the baby just as much as a woman does. 1 to 1 Equality would be him saying 'I don't want the baby' and being able to, without her knowledge or discretion, have it terminated.

If the fetus were being stored in some offsite location, you'd have a point. Alas, it is in the woman's body.

I'm not calling for 1 to 1 equality, I'm calling for the ability for a man to actively remove himself from Fatherhood based on his liberties as a human being.

His liberty is to not engage in sexual reproduction if he wants there to be a zero percent chance of pregnancy.

Just because someone consents to sex doesn't mean they consent to parenthood.

Just because someone consents to sex, doesn't mean they consent to impregnation. If a man's semen impregnates a woman when she didn't want to become pregnant, he should be charged with assault.

2. Unless the woman was raped then she's just as responsible for the pregnancy, the only difference is that she has all rights to terminate it and not have to live with it if she so chooses.

Quite true.

...See now you're getting into an INCREDIBLY complex theory that involves realities.

Does the sperm or the egg determine personality?

Are sperm and eggs identical?

I don't think they can be because if they were then all brothers would look exactly alike.

So is it the sperm or the egg which delivers more genetic information to create the child.

Say there's two realities.

Reality 1:

Woman A has sex with Man B, Child C is born.

Reality 2:

Woman A has sex with Man D, would Child C be born or would it be Child D?

They have different genetic compositions but which genetic information does a child take from most?!

To summarize.

That child may CERTAINLY have existed if the woman copulated with another man.

Emerging science indicates that certain genetic traits could well be set by a woman's first sexual partner, even if she wasn't impregnated by that man. There is so much we don't know, it's astounding.

Here's where I happily agree with you, even if it was an unintended use of words.

Children are a negative externality. We should abort them en masse. ...at least for a few years to let the Earth normalize it's population.

It's an unintended reading of my words. Population growth is depended upon for the basic expansion of our economy. The Earth will and does normalize populations as needed, and on its' own.

[Spectral]

This would not be seen as "fair" in any other situation, but now this is somehow "fair" because "vagina".

Right, biology isn't fair. That's why comparing this to other contracts is inherently fallacious - other contracts simply aren't comparable in any meaningful sense, as they don't involve two parties creating a child. That it's not "fair" is rather irrelevant - there's no way to make pregnancy and child-bearing "fair" and the obsession with fairness is pretty unhealthy.

[Deleted]

In addition to this, there's the obvious matter of the actual existence of the child.

I personally believe life begins at conception - but then the child doesn't matter i suppose.

What kind of low empathy, narcissistic girl well aware that they will be unable to provide a good home for a son or daughter and says, "whatever, that's not my problem"?

That's what i think about single mothers.

That this is a remotely condonable path to take is a sign of serious moral degeneracy on the part of many of our posters. Even if someone didn't want a child in the first place, being a father shouldn't be something to shun.

When i was 18, i managed to knock up my girlfriend, she was 19, she elected to have an abortion without bothering to involve me.
Intellectually I know that having that kid would have been the most stupid decision i (we) would ever make in my life - Still i hate her living guts to this day, and its been 8 years.

[Spectral]

I personally believe life begins at conception - but then the child doesn't matter i suppose.

I don't concur on the moral value of embryos, but that's a tangential topic.

That's what i think about single mothers.

Me too! I'm not impressed with people that have kids they can't afford.

When i was 18, i managed to knock up my girlfriend, she was 19, she elected to have an abortion without bothering to involve me.
Intellectually I know that having that kid would have been the most stupid decision i (we) would ever make in my life - Still i hate her living guts to this day, and its been 8 years.

OK. That sucks. I'm not really sure what to tell you though. I think she probably did the right thing, although I acknowledge that it's morally ambiguous.

[Deleted]

Hah. Now that we've established that facts play no part in your arguments, let's carry on.

That it has nothing to do with "what is best for the child" is a fact, that this rule is "what is best for the mother" is a fact. If you want to do what is best for the child then it should go directly up for adoption. Having two loving parents that can take care of you is much better for the child then having one that can't take care of you.

And the father chose to have sex knowing that a pregnancy could result. You want to start keeping score the second after the man blows his load, and that's fine as an opinion. Luckily, that opinion is not shared by the law or society-at-large.

That is irrelevant, she still decides to have that child, it is a choice. And stating law to defend that same law is not a defence at all.

Yes, she certainly is responsible. Alas, we only have one 'recorded' case of immaculate conception. So long as a woman isn't carrying the baby Jesus in her womb, the father is also responsible.

That makes no sense at all, it takes nothing away from the fact that it was her choice to have the baby. All babies are born by choice of the mother, not by accident.

You have to establish that the woman secretly wants to get pregnant for your scenario to even be viable. We've already established that pregnancy through fraud should be a crime.

Having the agreement that there should be no children of this should be more then enough, protection was used, so there you have it. It isn't a crime to do something on accident, you do not get a child by accident, she wanted this, it was a choice she made to have this child. And you want to have the other person pay up for her choice.

They are deadbeats if they desire to engage in an act which has a known possible outcome, yet they refuse to assume any responsibility for that possible outcome. Like I've said elsewhere... I'd support the idea of a 'Love Contract'... I just would love to see the 'successful bedding' rate of anyone that was that upfront regarding their myopic view of pregnancy.

That outcome will only occur if the woman wants it to occur, you know, that choice she has. They should not have any responsibility for a choice that someone else made.

- - - Updated - - -

Right, biology isn't fair. That's why comparing this to other contracts is inherently fallacious - other contracts simply aren't comparable in any meaningful sense, as they don't involve two parties creating a child. That it's not "fair" is rather irrelevant - there's no way to make pregnancy and child-bearing "fair" and the obsession with fairness is pretty unhealthy.

If you want to go with that, its fine, but if biology isn't fair then a male would not have to do anything for something that he didn't want. Not his body, not his problem, biology isn't fair..

[Deleted]

Right, biology isn't fair.

yeah but we have elected to create a system where biological inequities are remedied.

there's no way to make pregnancy and child-bearing "fair" and the obsession with fairness is pretty unhealthy.

Of course there is.
There are four options,
A, Where both people want the kid.
B, Where the mother wants the kid, and the father does not.
C, Where the Father wants the kid, and the mother does not.
D, Where neither party wants the kid.

We cant do anything about C, but we can do something about B.
If that is telling the woman, though luck you made a retarded choice, you pay for the consequences, or My favored solution, require single mothers to adopt any newborn children with no fathers, in that it produces the best result for society, the child, and i don't care about the rest.
Children have a right to parent's not the other way around.