If you aren't a man, then reading this post is, well...nevermind.

[flvegan]

Hey, fellas…hopefully I averted the eyes of the female gender from reading this. I just wanted to say that the men that are suggesting that they should have some form of “opt out” on support or that should otherwise be able to argue that they shouldn’t be responsible for a woman’s choice to keep a child, having been impregnated by that man…well, fuck those cowards.

Yeah, I said it. Fellas, you need to rise up, and realize that ANY time you have sex with a woman (for you idiots, that means any time you “hit it” or “get knee deep” or “wax that ass like Rain Dance” etc, etc, etc) you stand the chance of becoming a father. “I’m on the pill” is a matter of trust, and it’s still not 100%. Just as if you, looking to “get a little” suggested you knew what you were doing in not impregnating a woman, yet did so because she trusted your well-tested “pull-out” method.

Let me bottom line it…any time YOU put yourself in a situation where your penis is inside a woman, having sex, you stand the chance of her becoming pregnant, and you needing to be a father if she chooses to carry said pregnancy to term.

Dude, you aren’t pregnant. She is. You don’t have to do shit otherwise, unless a court (or your conscience) says so. She’s got all the issues, problems, bills, her future and the future of that child…you just have a few minutes of “downtime” for Mr. Happy.

Okay, okay… so you think that you “got tricked” by her. Tricked into what? Helping create a child you don’t care about? Yeah, bro…that’s her goal. She doesn’t care about that kid. She doesn’t think about that kid not having his/her daddy around. I mean, that’s a mother’s natural tendency, right? Ohhhhh…wait…I forgot. You got tricked because she wanted you to marry her…be there forever. Right. Considering the average woman would want to trick a man into being her husband. Since “tricking” a man into being a father is such a fine way to create a family, I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt. I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen, but puh-lease…to create a movement out of it is just…just…bullshit.

I’ve seen a great number of single moms. I’d never suspect ANY of them to want to somehow create a need for the “father” to be present. The vast majority would rather have a happy relationship with the dad, but wouldn’t force some deadbeat dumbass, not wanting to be responsible, to be an influence on her son (or daughter).

I look forward to the flames I’ll get from my fellow “men” on this, but I’ll stand by this. If you don’t want to be responsible, keep your manhood in check, and your zipper tight.

To the women that might read this...I'm sorry. I mean no disrespect. Sometimes folks just have to have it handed to them.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

1. Very nice post.

And yes, I'm female. And a feminist. And I take no disrespect.

:thumbsup:

[louis c]

205. A Fool Proof Method

she can't get pregnant from spit

[WestHoustonDem]

2. Thank you from a single mom!

I'm a single mom by choice - kicked the bum out and never looked back.

In 48 years, I have NEVER met a woman who set out to get pregnant to kick a man into marriage.

BTW, that tricking into marriage thing goes both ways.

[Sparkly]

3. Thank you!!

For women, an unwanted pregnancy means difficult choices based on necessity.

For men, an unwanted pregnancy means difficult choices based on CONSCIENCE -- and without that, they're gone. That's a "freedom of choice" a pregnant woman doesn't have.

Thanks for speaking to conscience (and WITHOUT the notion that a man has some inherent "right" in a woman's choice).

:yourock:

[magellan]

4. Well, I'm not a man but I just want to thank you

...for standing up for personal responsibility. Most of the men I've ever known (and I don't only mean in the biblical sense) have felt the same way as you. But it's always nice to hear! :)

[madokie]

5. I'm an old dude and I am with you 100%

enough of the 'it's a womans problem' we are the responsible ones

[Mythsaje]

6. It probably happens...

but the frequency is so rare as to be almost unknown. As I mentioned in the other thread on the subject, anyone who's spent a few minutes listening to Tom Leykus rant on the subject shouldn't be surprised that this has reared its head. It was only a matter of time.

[madeline_con]

19. Tom Leykis....

Thanks for "introducing" me to this piece of work. He looks like the kind of guy who couldn't get laid in a women's prison with a fistful of pardons. Typical that he;d blame everything on the woman.

I'm glad he's in CA on the other side of the country, like our former local idiot, Ed Till.

[Mythsaje]

20. He's a thorough bastard...

But seems to speak to a fairly large demographic.

[Nomen Tuum]

138. Ah, yes, Mr. Tom "married and divorced 4 times" Leykis

There was a time when he was one of the few liberals on talk radio, now he has mutated into another Howard Stern wannabee who has "listener parties" where he signs various parts of a woman's anatomy while he gets into a drunken stupor...

[liberalhistorian]

198. It certainly isn't any surprise

that the sexist fucker has been married four times, is it? My question is, what woman in her right fucking mind would even give him a second look, let alone marry him?

His "flash Fridays", in which he has men in their cars flash their lights at women they want to see lift their shirts and flash their boobs, is the absolute worst. He even rants against the women who won't flash!

And in his world, women are the cause of everything. They even get knocked up on their own.

[benevolent dictator]

7. Thank you!

From yet another feminist who not only takes no disrespect but appreciates you "handing it to them."

[MiniMandaRuth]

8. I second what WIMR said...

I don't care if they call us a whore or a slut... A man had just as much to do with the whole thing as a woman...

I take no disrespect at all...

[WritingIsMyReligion]

10. Hullo, MMR!

:hi:

[MiniMandaRuth]

13. Hey!

:hug:

[WritingIsMyReligion]

14. How're things out West?

:hug:

[MiniMandaRuth]

17. Band competition on Saturday...

Playing the Ragtime Waltz.... My friend is on the alto, me on the bari... It'll be fun...

[WritingIsMyReligion]

24. You're on bari??

I play bari.... 'Tis fun! I love the part I have in "Deacon Blues," which my jazzz band is playing--the rest of the band gets to bust its ass off, and I just flow along, playing the bass line...

:D :D

[flvegan]

12. Anyone that does that

I mean, calls "us" (you) a whore or a slut...you send them to me.

If I may be so bold...

WHORE:

1. A prostitute.
2. A person considered sexually promiscuous.
3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

So...a "whore" as so suggested might be a man that was sexually promiscuous, yes? Or, even better, a "whore" could be a man that compromised his principles (in taking care of his child) for personal gain (not wanting to pay support)? Am I right?

That's a boo-ya, fellas, and it took me both hands to hold it out there.

[johnnie]

9. I've read a lot of posts today

Are there really that many men here who needs to be told this? I haven't seen too many, but I could be wrong.

[Sparkly]

15. Unfortunately, it seems there are.

Some seem to think it's a new "civil right" to stake an "equal" claim in a decidedly unequal situation: whether to claim a right to a fetus (in opposition to a woman's choice not to carry it to term), or to abandon the issue altogether if women don't offer such a "right" to men.

It's been an eye-opener for me. :wow:

[flvegan]

30. It still needs to be said.

I'm not telling anyone anything. I'm stating the obvious.

[johnnie]

36. I understand

But to be honest with you, I think that it sort of makes men here at DU look as if they don't feel like you do.

I would wager to say that almost all the men at DU are aware of what you are saying and agree with you. I think we need to all support each other in all of the issues that are important to progressives and threads that seem to point fingers makes us look like we are fragmented.

I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, it is just that an outsider might read the threads that makes us all look like we are all in disarray as progressives and it makes us look weak in our support for each other.

I'm not attempting to belittle your opinion, I'm just a little concerned that sometimes we really look liker a bunch of misfits here at DU when heavy issues are being discussed.

[flvegan]

43. Okay, then

I disagree. If men here at DU don't feel as such, then fine. We all have the right to belief, opinion, etc. To broadbrush an entire gender based on one idiot's (mine) thread would be moronic, at best. However, if they, these men DO agree, then damn it...chime in. I'd LOVE nothing more than for my one little post to get 10,000 responses from DU men stating nothing more than..."I agree. n/t"

Any outsider that would look at this thread and thing we were in disarray has obviously ignored the other 250 active threads on any front pages of any forum on this board.

We're not misfits, we just choose to not march in lockstep. Not with a party, not with each other. I, of course, speak only for myself. Solidarity matters little when it's based on bullshit.

[JanMichael]

192. Yes. Yes. Yes. There are some real shitheads on DU lately.

Just read the thread.

[walldude]

11. While I fully agree with your post

I'm kinda bummed that there have been so many posts assuming that a majority of men are irresponsible assholes. Maybe it's just the circles I run around in but most men I know are decent responsible guys.

[flvegan]

16. Don't be bummed.

I don't think that it's assumption any more than it's folks sharing their experiences. My post is simply a reminder, mano a mano, as to the facts as, well, I see them.

Most men I know are decent, responsible guys, as well. But as you stated, those are the circles I run around in. I see and understand the frustration outside those circles.

[AnneD]

186. It is best to keep an open mind....

and treat each guy you meet as a nice person. The truth is, there are some not so good ones out there (otherwise we would not have some of the laws we have now or some that are proposed).
In a whisper....and you wouldn't have to have this talk with some guys.
That being said, from a lady's point of view, libs and DEM's are infinitely better, in EVERY way!

[BoneDaddy]

141. Ding ding ding... a winner

That has been my experience. It seems the attitude among a number of women in here, and some men for that matter, that men are irresponsible assholes. I would like to believe, based upon my personal experience that being irresponsible in sex is an issue that knows not just one group and is common among all.

[joeunderdog]

167. male-bashing...

It's not just for women anymore.

[leftofthedial]

18. if you are a father, you have a lifelong obligation to your children

regardless of the details of the impregnation.

the only exception I can think of is a sperm donor who becomes a "father" through artificial insemination with donated sperm.

[sheelz]

21. Just a reminder:

There are an increasing amount of men raising children alone too.

[flvegan]

23. And those men should be praised.

I mean to take nothing from men that not only do the right thing, but also take up the gauntlet, so to speak. A single father, though I can't imagine what that's like (nor can I a single mother) must be terribly difficult. To the men raising children alone, I give the same respect as I do the single women doing the same.

[sheelz]

28. I agree!

I've dated a couple of guys who were raising kids all by themselves. I have so much respect for them--parenting is difficult. Their kids are teens and now the fun really starts.

[LeftyMom]

29. I think it's harder for single fathers

Generally they have less instinct to rely on and they get even less help from society at large than single mothers.

I think the world of single fathers, but that's probably the product of being raised by one since my parents divorced when I was four. I'm glad he took what I suspect was an unwanted responsibility on, since my mother- no matter how much I love her and she loves my sister and I- really wasn't responsible enough to care for any living being more complex than a goldfish.

[flvegan]

31. I think that

instinct is there, but society isn't. I mean, were I to be a daddy tomorrow, I'd be instinctively ready. Society may not help me as much, for whatever that's worth, but I'd still have a grasp of the MANY tasks at hand.

Then, of course, I'd come crying to DU, pleading for help with my kid (ahem...unlike most DU women).

I'm just sayin...

[LeftyMom]

35. Maybe some men have that instinct

You wouldn't suprise me much as you're rather nurturant in personality.

Lord knows my Dad didn't have anything to fall back on instinct-wise but there are women who are like that too. :shrug: Maybe it's not a gender thing, just a matter of one's own childhood experience and a little bit of chance.

Personally, I try not to bring my parenting drama to DU- I kinda like you guys thinking I'm supermom even on days LeftyKid's being a brat and I want to curl up into a ball and cry from frustration.

[sheelz]

38. From what I experienced--

they are less apt to ask for help. I believe that a social support network is essential to raising healthy kids. My stepbrother is a single father raising 2 boys. My concern is the level of testosterone in the house with little to no female contact. But that is really how my stepbrother wants to raise them.

[LeftyMom]

39. Another potential issue

(maybe this has got better since I was a kid or was just my father's bad luck) is that it's not terribly difficult for single mothers to date, but as a general rule the only people who show interest in single fathers are women with kids of thier own who are shopping for a Daddy for the kids rather than a mate for themselves.

[sheelz]

46. Dating really sucks for a single parent and

blending family issues are even worse. Looking back-- I would almost recommend not dating till kids or older or out on their own and put all energies into the children.

[LeftyMom]

47. That's what happened with my father, he waited until the kids were grown

Personally, I was planning on taking some time off the relationship hamster wheel after my son's father and I split, but I lucked into something really great. If it doesn't work out I really can't see myself looking for or terribly interested in a relationship for some time.

[sheelz]

50. I took time after my divorce

and worked on myself in hopes of a healthier better relationship.

[LeftyMom]

55. That was kinda what I had in mind

but life is strange and it didn't work out that way.

[sheelz]

58. Love happens when your not looking

for a partner. Life is strange.

[LeftyMom]

67. Exactly.

He snuck up on me. Damn him. ;)

[BoneDaddy]

142. LOL

Can you imagine the uproar is I said something about a woman raising two girls, "wow, I better do something, I am so concerned about the level of estrogen in that house".

Come on now. Since when did testoterone become a disease. This gender crap is just that, crap.

[sheelz]

187. LOL

Well if a name like "BoneDaddy" doesn't say testosterone than I don't know what does. It must be a gender thing thing! :rofl:

[BoneDaddy]

199. Not what you think it is

Interesting that that is YOUR projection. It is a reference to Jack the skeleton from Nightmare Before Christmans. It is his nickname.

[sheelz]

216. My projection?

FYI--I'm a female

[BoneDaddy]

217. Yeah look up PROJECTION

Yes, projection. Gender has nothing to do with whether or not you can project onto someone. You "projected" YOUR understanding and meaning onto me, when in fact it was wrong.
So instead of thinking as if my screename means something testoterone filled like you thought, it actually meant something innocuous.
And btw you never did answer my question but sought to attack me personally.
Try harder next time.

[sheelz]

222. I have a psychology degree but I looked it up

Try this:
Here's classic projection:

"A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."

If this thread was about movie characters BoneDaddy would have a different meaning.
If this thread was about BBQ-BoneDaddy would have a different meaning.
Since this thread is about sexual responsibility and gender roles and a specific testosterone post then BoneDaddy would have a different meaning. It's the linkage of testosterone and BoneDaddy. Last week I would have associated the name to a BBQ restaurant in Chicago. Within this thread BoneDaddy and testosterone made me laugh. Therefore, I'm not trying to attack you. As far as your question--I don't see anything posed as a question. Some of you statements could be taken as a rhetorical question without using a question mark. So what is your question that I failed to answer? <--see question mark

Let me guess (not projection):

"Since when did testoterone become a disease. This gender crap is just that, crap."

I never said testoterone is a disease--You did. And gender is not crap although gender roles can be crappy.

Peace

[BoneDaddy]

223. Perhaps

Please exuse my defensiveness as it has been a battle between the women-who-hate men and the men-who-support women as of late. I assumed you were in the first category and that your comment was malicious, seeing testosterone as an "evil". It appears that it is not, my apologies.

My original question was "Can you imagine the uproar(?)is I said something about a woman raising two girls, "wow, I better do something, I am so concerned about the level of estrogen in that house".

So I ask you can you imagine the uproar if I treated estrogen like extremists approach testosterone?

The argument is actually quite silly as both men and women have both hormones in their bodies, but testosterone has become a catch phrase for nut-jobs to attempt to justify attacking men in total.

Peace.

[sheelz]

225. Thanks for the reply

I was talking specifically about my rightwinger aggressive stepbrother and how he chooses to raise his kids.

"So I ask you can you imagine the uproar if I treated estrogen like extremists approach testosterone?"

We've all heard many jokes about estrogen levels and PMS. PMS is real. http://www.usdoctor.com/pms.htm

Testosterone is real too and so are many stereotypes although ugly.

[sheelz]

227. As far as an uproar...

i really don't know. Perhaps a DU poll but I'm not sure how DU members would feel. I've never seen the extremist approach testosterone or estrogen? Please enlighten me. Is there such an animal?

[BoneDaddy]

228. Aye

Thank you very much as well . Enjoy your weekend

[Katherine Brengle]

113. I have to disagree about "instinct"--

I think that all human beings have an instinct to care for their offspring, just like most other animals. Men and women are both equally capable of caring for children, and doing it well.

Parenting does not come naturally to anyone--it is a learned skill. When my husband and I first brought our daughter home from the hospital, neither of us knew anything about changing diapers (other than the quick tutorial we got at the hospital, lol) or bathing her or feeding her--all we knew was that we loved her and the rest we learned as we went, together.

I think sometimes it seems like women automatically know how to take care of kids and men are bumbling idiots--a lot of this stems from social conditions such as daughters being expected to help out at an early age with younger siblings while many sons are not expected to do such things--therefore, some women enter adulthood with significant experience caring for children.

The love and attachment are natural--the skills are not, not one bit.

[LeftyMom]

119. I don't know

I had no significant experience with kids (I have a younder sibling but we're close enough in age that I don't really recall her infancy and certainly wasn't old enough to help) and for that matter didn't especially like them. When my son was born it really was a situation where instincts I didn't know I had kicked in, I went from being scared shitless about my ability to be a mother and utterly useless around babies to being very confident in my parenting ability within the space of 24 hours. I have to assume that's instinct, because it was such a powerful change and I'm really not that fast a learner or that confident in my capabilities otherwise.

[Katherine Brengle]

161. I really don't think it is---

(To preface, definitely not trying to start a fight, lol.)

I think that your "ability" came so quickly out of necessity, not instinct. WHen we bring these little helpless newborns home from the hospital, they are so small and delicate and weak--they need us, so we adapt to that need. If we were wired to take care of children, all of us would want them and all of us would be good at caring for them--but this is far from the case.

Some people (of any gender) are just more adaptable, and therefore probably are able to handle things like this more quickly than those who adapt at a slower pace (or not at all, as in some cases).

[sandnsea]

22. That's exactly how I raised my sons

Really doesn't matter whether a woman has a game or not, fellas need to recognize that any time they have sex it could be the time they become a father. That's all there is to it.

[bbinacan]

25. While agree with your post

There seems to be a double standard. You said,
"I look forward to the flames I’ll get from my fellow “men” on this, but I’ll stand by this. If you don’t want to be responsible, keep your manhood in check, and your zipper tight."

You assume it's only men. Let me use your words.

"If you don’t want to be responsible, keep your womanhood in check, and your zipper tight."

It's a two way street, bub.

:hide:

[flvegan]

27. I assume nothing, thank you.

Women already assume the responsibility, regardless, knowing that they'll be carrying and caring for a child, should they make that choice.

There is no double standard, and the two way street is just that...bub.

As for what I said, I soundly, expected no flames from the majority. However, I did expect some males to come forth with a certain agenda. One, that I'd be happy to discuss when it does come forth.

[bbinacan]

41. What is my certain "agenda"?

I think for myself, ask questions, and feel no pressure to be in "the majority" as you direct. You also basically admonished anyone from debating you by the "expected no flames from the majority." You prefaced your whole post on getting responses that you want. :banghead:

[flvegan]

48. I hope you don't make all your arguments this way.

I don't direct, so don't say I do. I never admonished anyone. Matter of fact, I welcomed debaate, even begged for it. Hell, I challenged it. What more could be asked for. Open it up, I'll be there.

You...well, just didn't bring it. To suggest that I prefaced anything to get responses that I wanted is, at best, loony.

Keep thinking for yourself, though. I'm sure it'll pay off.

[bbinacan]

60. Read your

original post and you'll (hopefully) see what I mean. Read it closely and see what I saw.:eyes:

[flvegan]

62. Vagueness makes me yawn.

Got anything else except alluding to things that aren't there without specifically pointing them out?

"Read it closely and see what I saw"

You MUST be kidding me.

[bbinacan]

78. OK I'll spell it out

You said, "I look forward to the flames I’ll get from my fellow “men” on this, but I’ll stand by this."

In this sentence alone you say that you shouldn't be challenged. Since you seem to need some help understanding this look at how you said fellow "men". And Dude, if you need more explanation, than I give up. You told all on DU not to disagree with you.

[flvegan]

84. No I didn't.

What I said was that I look forward to those with dissenting opinions, however I won't waver from my original statement.

If it were that easy to tell folks to NOT disagree around here, wouldn't most others invoke this fairy tale rule of yours?

BTW, please don't put words nor perceptions in my mouth, okay? Think all you want, just don't project. Groovy, thanks. I don't really need you speaking for me.

[bbinacan]

91. Why emphasize

"men" in quotes? That was implying the negative for your debaters. You still don't get it do you? You're boring me and most people here. PM me if you care to continue this discussion. Gotta crash now. Peace.

[flvegan]

92. Because it fit.

Besides, I shouldn't be setting the stage for my debaters, they should be setting the debate for me. Right? Implying the negative...whatever. If that ever won, there'd be no discussion, ever.

You PM ME if you still don't get it.

Peace back.

[Sparkly]

105. Okay, even *I* get this.

As I've said, I'm one of four sisters -- no boys. But I see this notion of "manly men," with "balls," who aren't "pussies," who don't "throw like girls," etc...

I saw the word "men" in quotes as a challenge to those men, alluded to obliquely in the OP, who'd either walk away from their responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy, or stake some claim on a woman's body.

The word "man" is so loaded ("Are you a MAN or a mouse?" "Stand up like a MAN!" etc.) and I think this use of "man," in quotes, is a challenge to go beyond the typical idea of strength and courage ("balls," "muscle," etc.) to a different kind of strength and courage -- conscience, consciousness, empathy, responsibility, all those "wussy" things.

So I thought the word "men" in quotes was eloquent.

[LeftyMom]

107. I believe that's what his intent was

I hate to put words in his mouth but since he's gone to bed I'll go ahead and and assume that was his intent.

[Heidi]

132. You're unqualified to speak

for "most people here," re: "You're boring me and most people here." You're only qualified to speak for yourself. This is a good discussion, and I certainly don't find it boring.

[joeunderdog]

168. I agree. This post is genius.

It's like yelling "free donuts!" in a crowd of fat people.
It's like yelling "dam liburls" at a Bush convention.

The recent abortion threads have generated alot of misdirected venom on the DU boards. Make a post about those damn men and you are sure to be rewarded around here. Too much fist-pounding and finger-pointing at the wrong villans.

[flvegan]

190. Ahem

"free donuts in a crowd of fat people."

I'm not even going to bother.

[sendero]

159. I assume you are intellectually dishonest..

.... or not too bright if you can't see that "If you don’t want to be responsible, keep your manhood in check, and your zipper tight" is exactly the same argument fundies make against abortion.

I'm not going to argue with you because you've already lost.

[flvegan]

203. Check yourself, poster.

Call me "not too bright" if it makes you feel better.

Fundies argue about not having sex. I suggest not being responsible. You can go to dictionary.com and look that one up, if you need to.

I haven't lost, nor would I care if I had. Check your ego at the door, poster.

Sendero...that's one to remember.

[sendero]

207. Play semantics..

... all you want. When you say "don't have sex etc....", you are IN FACT using the same arugment fundies use, "you shouldn't need an abortion because you should never have sex unless you want to make a baby".

Your ego is the one that needs checking. Your OP says basically, "I'm right, you're wrong, blah blah". I don't think so. Not even close.

[flvegan]

209. I used the word "responsibility" poster

Look it up. Then, get a pencil and write down all the shit you can say against the post again. Then, repost it when it's relevent, okay?

Your suggestion of what the OP says is perception. OH, good gracious, "I don't think so." Pfft.

[sendero]

213. I can read,.....

.... and I assure you my comprehension is just fine. Your original point is mush and it is no surprise you cannot defend it well, throwing "responsibly" in there doesn't alter the message one iota, just as it wouldn't the fundies' message.

Women have gained a lot of intrinsically deserved rights over the last few decades, but sexism is alive and well when it comes to marriage, divorce, childbirth and parenthood.

I personally think it is time for women to realize that there is no right without a responsibility. And that their right to decide whether to carry a child to term is undoubtedly and unreservedly theirs, their right to shuffle half the responsibility for 18 years of financial support onto someone who does not and never did want it is not so absolute. Just saying "well don't have sex" is a ludicrous position, as realistic as abstinence-only education.

[flvegan]

214. Call it mush, poster.

Fact is, I never said "well don't have sex" did I? I suggested taking responsibility. You suggest a "shuffle" of responsibility. Good luck with that stance.

Your strawman post is amusing, though. Thanks!!

[sendero]

218. You are backtracking at full speed...

... here is exactly what you said:

"Let me bottom line it…any time YOU put yourself in a situation where your penis is inside a woman, having sex, you stand the chance of her becoming pregnant, and you needing to be a father if she chooses to carry said pregnancy to term."

Your implication here is that if you are a man, and you have sex, and a pregnancy results - NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES - if the woman decides to give birth it is your 18 year problem.

I say nonsense. And I further say that is exactly equivalent to an anti-abortionist saying "there should be no reason for an abortion, any sex act that results in a pregnancy should be carried to term", another nonsense position.

Let's say a man meets a woman at a bar. They are mutually attracted and wind up in bed. The man asks about "protection" and the woman says "I'm on birth control". Let's say she is not on birth control, and she knows it, and she is wanting to have a child but not necessarily wanting a husband. Sounds far fetched? Happens, it does happen.

Should the guy now be responsible for raising a child that was never intended to be created by him? Never mind accidents, which WILL happen, condoms, bc pill, NOTHING is 100% effective - let's just stick to cases where the female is dishonest. It's fraud pure and simple, and there is nothing remotely fair about the man having to pay for the rest of his life for something OUT OF HIS CONTROL BEYOND SIMPLY NOT HAVING SEX, which I'm sure you would agree is really not an option.

I will admit that my original response was overly confrontational, and I regret that. But, I've reread your OP and frankly I stand by my interpretation - it is not a position on an issue with a call for discussion, it is a blunt "this is how it is and those who disagree are already wrong" post, and those raise my ire.

This is not a black-white issue, like many complicated issues. As I said earlier, women have gained a lot in the way of rights and I'm all for that, I believe in 100% equal rights for all. But I find that men are still getting screwed in many areas of the law concerning marriage, divorce, and child issues, and it pisses me off. Equality means just that, equal rights and responsibilities for BOTH GENDERS.

You can have the last word if you wish, this "poster" has made his point.

[Sparkly]

33. Double-standard?

Biology is an inherent double-standard. Doesn't it go without saying that women must "be responsible?" There is no way for a woman to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy.

[bbinacan]

45. That's not what I said.

I said the responsibility for pregnancy lies we both parties.

[Sparkly]

52. Maybe we're talking about two levels of "responsibility."

The OP said, "If you don't want to be responsible, don't..." etc...

You said that was a double-standard.

Morally or ethically, both are "responsible" for the pregnancy, yes; but in PRACTICAL terms of the aftermath, the woman bears responsibility by necessity, while the man bears responsibility by conscious choice.

Agreed, or no?

[bbinacan]

66. Agreed,

Somehow,I think we are trying to say the same thing, but not quite communicating it to one another succinctly. Gotta crash now. Long day in the AM.

[Usrename]

195. Aha, a tiny spark of some deeper insight.

In an oterwise very shallow thread. Shared resposibility. Deadbeat women? Could they exist? Naw!!! Not if your view of the world is shallow enough...

[CTLawGuy]

221. its called abortion

"There is no way for a woman to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy."

you're right, biology is a double standard, and that's why the woman should have absolute control over her body, because we are defending the value of bodily sovereignty (which is one rationale for abortion rights).

the other main rationale is that one should not be forced to be a parent. That has nothing to do with biology but rather legal duty. and that there is no reason (if feminism is REALLY about gender equality, which I doubt sometimes) to aboslutely impose it on either gender.

[KitchenWitch]

26. This former single mom says BRAVO!

:applause:

[jpgray]

32. "If you dont' want a baby, don't have sex" is an anti-choice argument

You just agree with it when the logic is applied to men, I suppose. But to point out the problems of your philosophy take the example of teacher-student molestations. If the teacher is male and the victim is female and a pregnancy results, your idea could work--if the girl wants to keep the baby, the teacher would be obligated to support it. That's as it should be. However, reverse the genders and things become much less clear. What if the victim is the father and the teacher is the mother, and she has decided to keep the baby? Now, based on your logic the victim has no say over what is to become of the rest of his life--his molester has decided to keep the baby and wants his financial support, and if this seems unfair to him, he has only your words to fall back on:

"I just wanted to say that the men that are suggesting that they should have some form of “opt out” on support or that should otherwise be able to argue that they shouldn’t be responsible for a woman’s choice to keep a child, having been impregnated by that man…well, fuck those cowards."

Yeah, fuck that coward--he's fully responsible for suffering statutory rape.

In general it's a good rule that the woman has near-absolute power to get compensation from deadbeat impregnators if she decides to keep the baby, because that's the case one would see most often. But the problems with your "just keep it in your pants" argument are basically the same as the problems with the same argument leveled at women by the anti-choice crowd. It ignores incest, molestation, statutory rape among other crimes--these aren't all male-perp female-victim crimes, so I don't think it's right in all cases to give total control to the woman.

Again, just because the overwhelming majority of cases will involve a deadbeat guy doesn't mean there are no scenarios where the male's rights need some protection.

[flvegan]

40. And framing it as such is a RW tactic.

Should I go on?

There are no problems in this philosophy, I don't think. Please, assist me if I'm wrong....

You jump to molestations? The "victim" in the first case is carrying the child. The "victim" in the second, as a minor (and, again, "victim") may have resolution and an Order from said court based on said criminal charges, may keep an underaged, unknowing individual from suffering from my oh so ugly "fuck those cowards" guillotine.

Tell you what, I'll withhold any of my DU adjudication on women perfoming acts of incest, molestation and rape upon men, IF that makes you happy, k?

[LincolnMcGrath]

57. Right, because there is no framing in your OP.

none, zero, zip, nada.

[flvegan]

61. Point it out and have at it, poster.

Go on...

[LeftyMom]

44. He's not saying "don't have sex"

(Sorry for speaking for you hon, please speak up if I mis-state what you're getting at) What he's saying is that the choice ultimately lies with the woman because she's the one who bears the majority of the responsibility, so men who choose to have sex should know that they risk fatherhood and be responsible if that happens.

As far as I could tell, he was only talking about consensual sex. Minors and non-consensual sex acts are another issue entirely and of course thornier but the primary legal and ethical consideration is still the welfare of the child rather than the circumstances of it's creation.

[flvegan]

49. (flvegan takes refuge in LeftyMom's post)

Nailed it. Well stated.

[LeftyMom]

53. Wow, usually it's the other way around

How often do I post something that reads like I've been huffing paint and you get to tell DU what the hell it was I meant before I piss too many people off. Too damned often, it seems like. :rofl:

[flvegan]

56. Seems appropos how such a partnership

rears it's pretty head, sometimes, eh?

You never read like you're huffing paint (except when you're talking about me).

[DarkmoonIkonoklast]

220. "... huffing paint..."? YOU? Never noticed any such thing, dear lady!

MMYou've always made sense to me! ;-)

[blonndee]

64. OMGs, THAT's your hypothetical example?!?

Couldn't you come up with something more likely and more in keeping with the spirit of the OP? This is a red herring.

[jpgray]

80. I'm just pointing out cases where the male's rights need defending

It isn't always as simple as "you should've kept your pants on" for men or women. I was very careful to point out that it's far more rare that a male's rights are threatened by a pregnancy, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen or that we should ignore it when discussing the issue.

[blonndee]

88. Well, maybe you have a point, BUT I still think your example is

extreme and not really the best to discuss in terms of MOST cases. Perhaps if you had acknowledged more emphatically that this would be an exceptionally RARE example. But the point is, it's a red herring BECAUSE it's so extreme--it shifts the discussion to the extreme "what ifs" instead of focusing on the issue at hand. The whole issue of minors impregnanting adults is a legal problem that would be subject to individual scrutiny. Your example detracts from the practical application of what the OP was saying, IMO.

[jpgray]

96. Anti-choicers often argue that rape/incest are extreme, rare examples

In fact just by googling "what % of pregnancies result from rape incest" I got links to many fundie sites arguing exactly that in an attempt to ignore abortion scenarios where their arguments are revealed as morally problematic. Here's one:

http://www.probe.org/content/view/1125/47/

It's true that my example is far more rare and far more extreme, but I still think any sensible person would admit that there exist cases where the man's rights need defending as well. To me, saying "who cares, that's a rare occurrence" avoids the issue. If flvegan wants to make a broad statement about men always needing to be responsible if they have sex, then he should expect this sort of response--it's not an attack on his post so much as a comment outlining the problems I have with his point of view. Nobody has to agree with me.

[blonndee]

102. You are right, I think, that it's complicated in terms of

ADULT men. It's not a black and white issue, and even as an emphatically pro-choice woman, I definitely see the complications that arise with respect to what you call "men's rights." However, in your example, the issue is not "men always needing to be responsible if they have sex" (what flvegan said); because minors are NOT MEN, with a few possible exceptions, I would imagine, such as 16 or 17 year olds impregnating girlfriends who are a couple or few years older...I don't know, I'm sure there are a few relevant, real-life examples there.

I just have a problem with what you're saying here because the OP was not referring to people who are not legally consenting adults, and what you posited had to do with just that group of people (people who are NOT legally consenting adults). Now, if you had initiated a discussion about "men's rights" in general, I think that would have been more reasonable, although you and I PROBABLY would still have disagreeed to some degree.

[Sparkly]

75. Now THAT is a creative stretch!!!

Your post inadverently points out why biology itself sets up an inequal equation.

When there's a case of a woman committing sexual abuse against a boy, there are criminal issues involved. There is no WAY the boy would be held legally, criminally, or economically responsible for a conception that resulted from his victimization, resulting in sentencing for the woman he impregnated. In this case (as with any other case), it's the WOMAN who cannot escape the consequences.

But if a girl is impregnated by a man, the victim, as well as the abuser, must face consequences. He faces criminal sentencing, but his victim isn't off the hook -- she faces a decision to abort or to carry the pregnancy to term. In addition, she faces the STIGMA that's so often overlooked in these dry discussions. (A boy is a "stud," a girl is a "slut.")

If your issue is "male's rights," I suggest we start with "female's rights."

[LincolnMcGrath]

79. Teen boys who were abused have had to pay support.

They have been in the news repeatedly for years.

[Sparkly]

81. Really?

I missed that. :dunce: But I'll say right now I think THAT is wrong.

(Probably the boys' parents are paying it -- still wrong.)

[LincolnMcGrath]

83. Yes Really

And yes the parents pick up the lion's share of the support.

[blonndee]

90. I'm not doubting you to the point of completely disbelieving you,

but I have never heard of this. Can you show us some evidence of this happening?

[Katherine Brengle]

117. I was about to ask the same thing--I'm going to...

Google and see if I can find anything, but I have never heard of a case like this. The only thing that comes immediately to mind is the Mary Kay Letourneau (sp?) case, and I think that in the end, those two ended up 1) having a second child while she was in prison, and 2) getting married, so I really don't know if this applies to the situation floated by the original poster of this thread off-shoot. I agree that it would have, while the male was still underage, but after this point, if he chose to continue the relationship and sired a second child, he should be held accountable for both.

[Katherine Brengle]

116. Your example doesn't speak at all to the OP---

He actually didn't touch on this subject at all--just as he didn't touch on male-perpetrated rape.

The OP was about consensual sexual relations, and I think that was pretty clear.

[porphyrian]

34. So, from now on, demand oral sex.

Your choice to be a father or not ends at coitus.

[flvegan]

51. "Demand?"

"Demand" oral sex?

What an odd thing to say. Maybe there's more to this...maybe. OP?

[Katherine Brengle]

118. Um... ew. I don't think anyone should be "demanding" anything--

reminds me eerily of that "marriage contract" story from last week.

[soldier101]

144. Oral sex has led to pregnacy

There was a case several years back where a guy got a BJ from a women. After he left she collected his sperm and impregnated herself. Had the baby, then sued for child support. Since the guy was the biological father, the court ordered him to pay child support.

[Nicole]

179. Demand oral sex?

Let us know how that works out for ya. :rofl:

[dweller]

37. i'd like to give you a hand ...

:applause:

and for the rest of these so called 'men': i'll lend you one since you've forgotten you have them. . .

For one of these days, you will have to realize that there are more important details in this short life than making the little man in your pants happy, that the love and attention your child returns to you for your actual presence and support is the greatest joy you WILL ever experience, and that what seems like a lifetime of commitment and responsibility passes by so quickly that you will wonder where the time went.

this from a guy that raised 2 wonderful daughters on his own that would go for the gold for me, and all it took was the promise to be there for them and sticking to it no matter what, so stop your whining and conniving and trying to wheedle your way around your true part in this world.

be a real man for once.
dp

[flvegan]

54. Ooooooooohhh!!!

Now THAT is putting it on a silver platter, steaming, covered and smelling like dinner, then handing it to them like they never saw it coming.

[stop the bleeding]

42. I wish the women folk would read this post, it lends credibility to our

argument that men(or at least some men) are quite intelligent.


Bravo on the good post.

{insert golf clap sound here}:applause:

[flvegan]

59. I hope that they will too...

if for nothing else than to know that some of us (men) completely, irrefutably stand with them in solidarity.

[LincolnMcGrath]

63. There's a shocker! Look at me ladies!

:evilgrin:

[LeftyMom]

65. Are you implying something?nt

[LincolnMcGrath]

70. Heavens no!

[flvegan]

71. Good one!

Look everyone...an empty response, but I think I've made a point.

[dweller]

68. looks fade away, bro ...

but memories, providing you have a part in them, last forever.

dp

[flvegan]

69. I hope your ego takes a vacation at some point.

Sometimes the perceptions folks throw out there make them look the fool.

[LincolnMcGrath]

72. There is allot of that going around I hear.

BTW Vagueness makes me yawn, or something like that...

[flvegan]

73. To wit, you have yet to respond.

I won't even bother with "allot" as the point is well made.

It's entertaining when folks make a challenge, suggest something, then let the crickets take over. Usually, that's when they say things like...nevermind.

[LeftyMom]

74. Would both of you kindly stop

Look, whether or not you agree with the OP or his point, it really isn't appropriate to resort to a pissing match of thinly veiled personal attacks. If you have a problem with flvegan's post, kindly post it and we can all discuss the merits of your argument and it's relation to his. If you have a problem with him, please PM or something, he's a nice guy and I'm sure you can get it straightened out.

In the meantime- this is a good thread and this tangent's fucking it up, so kindly stop.

[dweller]

76. it's a 'manly' thing ... n/t

:eyes:

dp

[Sparkly]

77. I, for one, would like to see it play out!

I vote for unveiling whatever the attacks are about. I'm curious. (I have three sisters and no brothers, so men are as mysterious to me now as little boys were growing up. I want to know what's going on!)

[LeftyMom]

82. Oh, if they keep it up I'll get my popcorn and soda and watch the show

I'd rather see the thread get back to thorny issues of sexual responsibility and fatherhood rather than whatever the hell this is all about, though.

[Sparkly]

85. I got mine, and I want to know what the show's about.

As far as I can tell, it's about whether claims of sexual responsibility and fatherhood are a show for us ladies. (Or for those of you who are "ladies" -- I have to count myself out.)

I think these are two enlightened men, so I'd love to know what the conflict is. So far, I don't get it. Do you? :popcorn:

[flvegan]

87. Not speaking for the other poster, but

I would hope that neither that poster nor I would think that any such claims are "a show" for anyone. If that is the case, then please remove the word "enlightened" from your belief.

[Sparkly]

94. Understood.

I was responding with the same metaphor.

I'd like to know what the disagreement is with your post.

[LeftyMom]

89. I thought that was what it was

I was hoping that wasn't it, because that's not the case at all. The OP and I were talking about this stuff the other night on the phone and he really does feel strongly about this. (In any case, he doesn't need to show off his feminism to get female attention on DU or otherwise.)

Anyhow, off to pop some kernels and drizzle them in earth balance. :popcorn:

[Sparkly]

97. Mine is "Smart Balance Light Butter"

and I haven't noticed ANY "female attention."...

(So how much do you want for his phone number?)

On edit: Note to H2S -- I'm kidding!!!

[dweller]

95. if i may,

it has something to do with a curious bout (ritual) of pecking order.

Mr. M has implied as i read it, that mr.fl is posting in solidarity with the opposite sex in order to garner some 'points' in the strange mating rituals known to humans.

I expect some further feather fluffing and color changing about the upper facial/neck, followed by chest puffing, strutting, scratching of lower extremities is taking place offline somewhere, meanwhile the OP is casually considering his conscientious reply to the next peck.

let's watch, here :popcorn:, we'll share.


dp


edit: gramma fairy

[flvegan]

98. I sincerely hope

that you aren't gearing any of that "feather fluffing" in regards to me.

[dweller]

104. absolutely not, flvegan ...

having been plucked early on in my days here at DU i have found the pleasure of growing the 'thick skin' that is necessarily recommended by the old ones.

carry on my friend. Your original point was well stated and timely.

dp

[druidity33]

146. hmmm...

I believe it's commonly called a pissing match. Not quite sure what it means, though i suspect its origins derive from a biological "marking territory" standpoint. I once read a book about dogs which said that mostly when they mark posts/bushes/hydrants/etc they aim as high as possible, that other dogs in passing if they have to sniff high think "wow, that's a big dog, better be careful"... funny thing is, small dogs who are smart (there are a surprising amount of them) learn to lean in and aim high, whereas tall dogs, already assured of their superiority, just pee wherever, never concerned about the height of their stream.

As for me, I met my partner when she was a couple of months pregnant... torn about leaving college to have the kid, abortion, adoption,... just 19 and so beautiful and going through SO much. I have been with her ever since. Today is our 5 year anniversary, our child is happy and healthy... she was born 6 hours shy of my Birthday and to this day, being in the birthing room and holding that newborn have been the two most powerful experiences of my life.

I tell the dog bit and my story because they relate a little. We've all heard "Men are dogs!". Well maybe it's truer than we think. Personally, I love dogs... yeah they're dimwitted sometimes, but they ARE lovable, no denying that. And yes, there are MEAN dogs out there... but maybe we should be looking to their "Masters" and dealing with the problem there. Going out on a limb here and it's a stretch but i'm going to state that what makes PEOPLE OF ALL KINDS ACT AWFUL is the almighty dollar, Mammon, the Golden calf, Greed, etc.

This is my quote for the day:

"We need an economy that rewards decency, caring, civic participation, and learning as automatically as the market now rewards unbridled self-interest, winner-take-all competion, and runaway specialization"

Edgar Cahn, from No More Throw Away People
i can't recommend this book more... it's revolutionary and offers solutions to so many societal problems... easy to read, looks at everything from fantastic new angles, just good stuff...

[KitchenWitch]

86. I am a woman, I read the post

and I applauded up thread!

:applause:

[BikeWriter]

93. Oh shit. As a radical feminist I was ready to pounce, until...

I read the tongue in cheek latter part of your post and saw it for what it was. Well said, Flvegan!

[flvegan]

99. Thank you, sir.

We feminists need to stick together on what we can agree upon, yes?

Only in solidarity can we overcome, regardless of what upon we may not agree. God, it's late, and I fear my grammar is failing me.

[BikeWriter]

100. Screw the grammar. You said what was needed.

[flvegan]

101. Right. Sigh.

I'm off to bed. I'm leaving you in charge of smacking down anyone that seeks to besmirch the feminists 'round these parts.

Ye gods, what have I done?!

[BikeWriter]

103. ROFLMFBO! Oh, this could be good...

[Sparkly]

110. Hey!

When a man's condom breaks, and his seed creates an embryo, it's HIS seed, dammit! Oh sure, she's incubating it, but doesn't half of it belong to HIM? Why doesn't HE get to decide what happens in an unwanted pregnancy?

Futhermore...

When a man's condom breaks, and his seed creates an embryo, it's not HIS problem, is it? If she wants the CHOICE without his say, then he's free to walk, right? Why is HE supposed to share the burden just because she wants to have the baby?

Discuss!!! ;)

[LeftyMom]

111. OMG Sparkly, that was too perfect!

:rofl:

[MichiganVote]

178. Because she pushes the kid out her ass and you don't--nature baby

[Solon]

106. I agree, with two exceptions...

The first are men who are permanently disabled, for any reason, and live on Disability.

And the Second would be if the sex wasn't consentual, in other words, the man was raped by the woman.

Other than that, I agree 100%.

[Sparkly]

108. Okay, fine....

I'm sure legislation could be passed to protect that .00000000001% of men. ;)

[Solon]

112. Actually, about 16% of all sexual assaults on men are done by women...

the rest are male on male, and about 20% of men have will suffer from some type of sexual assault in their lifetimes. Nothing to laugh at, and the statistics are probably higher, on both counts, just like for women, with lack of victims coming out about the assaults.

[Sparkly]

114. And the percentage of sexual assaults

done on men are what?

And the percentage of sexual assault done on men that result in pregnancy are what?

I have no problem with dealing with whatever the numbers are -- I'm just saying that these are NOT the numbers that represent where the vast majority of the issue lies today.

[Solon]

120. As I said 1 in 5 men suffer sexual assault generally...

And almost 20% of those are situations where women were the aggressors, is that so hard to understand? As far as how many end up resulting in pregnancy, that would be impossible to tell, wouldn't it?

[Sparkly]

121. Wait, so....

Of all the sexual assaults committed, what percentage are against men/boys, vs. women/girls?

Then of that percentage, you say only 16% are committed against boys by women (rather than against boys by men).

(Actually, you said "women" against "men," but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that all these "men" were legal minors -- boys.)

And within THAT percentage, you say we don't know how many or how few result in pregnancy.

So considering the impact of new legislative changes on abortion and the effect on WOMEN, it seems your point references a miniscule, even infinitessimal, proportion in its impact on "men" - is that right?

[Solon]

122. I meant MEN, not child molestation...

Now I know why my best friend in college committed suicide, even progressives don't believe men can be raped by women, your attitude disgusts me. :puke:

[Sparkly]

123. Pfffft

I was only trying to clarify your stats using your words -- "men" vs. "boys" -- and make it the worst case possible to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I never said men can't be raped by women - but if that's what you're using for your stats, you also have to be realistic here. For God's sake, we're still talking about .00000000000-whatever percentage of assaults, and .0000000000000000000 whatever of the agony resulting from unwanted pregnancy!!!!

Is there something difficult about the equation?

[Solon]

125. OK, to clarify only, and repeat myself for the third time...

Almost 20% of ALL sexual assaults against MEN, guys at the age of consent, not Children, had women who were the perps, of those, I have no clue as two how many resulted in pregnancy, it would be impossible to tell, because apparently, due to your own ignorance, you would like to nullify the suffering of others because it doesn't fit into your little worldview. Now, let's be realistic, there are about 58 million men over the age of 20 in this country, of those about 11.6 million were or have been sexually assaulted, now out of those, about 2.32 million were assaulted by women, how many of those, just given the roll of the dice, ended up with pregnancies?

[Sparkly]

134. "due to your own ignorance"

Nice... :eyes: Please enlighten me.

You're claiming that 2,320,000 adult men were sexually assaulted by women in this country -- in what time frame? A year?

And of those, you aren't sure how many pregancies resulted, but it's significant enough that THIS is your issue regarding reproductive rights?

Links, please?

[LeftyMom]

124. The OP already clarified upthread that he was only talking about

pregnancies resulting from consensual sex in adults. Minors and rape cases are another issue entirely.

[Solon]

126. Actually, he only mentioned minors...

Apparently, to some on the board(not you apparently), rape can't happen to men over the age of 18, at least when it involves a female.

[LeftyMom]

127. My apologies, I clarified on his behalf in post 44

and he agreed and thanked me in post 49. I can easily see see how somebody'd miss the exchange (it's a long thread) but his statement in the original post did not apply to minors or non-consensual sex.

[Solon]

128. OK, that's cool...

Yeah, I didn't even see the thread until it was nearly at 3 digits, its easy to miss these things, hence my little provisions on my first post in the thread.

[buckettgirl]

165. i don't understand

I'm not trying to make you mad or anything; perhaps I am that naive/sheltered/uninformed... but I don't understand how a woman can rape a man... :shrug: I don't get it. I know that women can and do abuse positions of authority to get sex from male subordinates. I know that women harass men as well... But how can a woman rape a man? How can you force an erection?
I feel stupid asking, but I really don't get it....

[Solon]

182. Unless the guy in question has Erectile Dysfunction...

It takes very little to get an arousal response, even if its not conscious. OK, I could give one example, the date rape drug, forget the name, works on both men and women about the same, loss of self control. In such a situation, neither a man nor a woman can consent to sex, yet, in both cases, they may experience physical arousal allowing for the completion of a sexual act and would not be able to physically resist the one forcing the act. Another situation would be just plain alcohol, and others include good old fashioned force, a man can be just as subdued when seeing a knife or gun as a woman would, but, in most cases, this would do little kill libido, so to speak. Guys can be aroused without conscious thought, that is one thing that people have to realize. To give an example, ask any man if he ever woke up with a hard on, many, nearly all, will say yes, sometimes this happens repeatly, even well into adulthood, and believe me when I tell you, trying to consciously put it under control when you need to go to the bathroom is hard to do. Note, Men, generally, cannot go to the bathroom with a erection without it being painful, for obvious reasons.

I could give you an example of one case, in Canada I believe, where a woman kidnapped a man and brought him home and tortured and repeatly raped him, sometimes even with foriegn objects, for a solid week. He was finally able to escape, and she was arrested and sentenced to 15 years in prison. This is extremely rare, for a reason, most men in situations that involve a woman taking total control of their body face the same emotional consequences as women do, and the same reluctance, sometimes even more so, than women, to report such assaults to authorities. For women, in the past, it was terrible, sometimes being labeled as sluts, etc. for men, similar things happen, but sometimes even worst, in cases where guys do go to the cops, the standard response is: "Is this even a crime?" or they start teasing such men for weakness, "why didn't you enjoy it?" etc. Just as with women, the same problems with guilt, shame, etc. all come into play and its never really talked about. Not to mention the cultural problems.

I'll give an example of how the culture of machoism comes into play against men. The movie 40 days and 40 nights was extremely offensive, I believe, in many ways, but I'll give an example of one. OK, the movie is about a guy who gives up sex for Lent, something that is hard for him, so his friends placed a bet that he will either succeed or fail, and included mastrubation into the mix. Anyways, so he meets a new girl after breaking of with his ex, they date, but he finally tells her about the bet, no biggie, apparently. So, on the 40th day, his ex girlfriend decided to ruin his plans so to speak, he was tied up in his own bed, to prevent "wandering hands" so to speak, at his roommates insistance. So she snuck in, undressed, while he was asleep, and put herself on top of him, having sex with him without his consent. Now, he wakes up, freaks, she leaves, and the thing that kills me is that it was treated as no big deal, at least legally, and his new girlfriend gets pissed at HIM for being raped? How would you feel if the situation was protrayed the same, but the sexes reversed?

[buckettgirl]

185. Wow

I do generally tend to see myself as a decently informed individual... but I truly had no idea that things like this happen.
I have seen 40 days and 40 nights, but never thought of it from that perspective.
I can understand that when this happens to a man, it must be horrible to know that if you say anything, you will likely be ridiculed and not taken seriously.
I guess I have always thought that men, being the (generally) the stronger of the 2 genders, would never have a problem fighting off a woman.
I also really did think that men had more control over their erections (at least when they are conscious)...
:blush:
Thank you for enlightening me

[Nicole]

129. I don't understand your exceptions

How does being disabled automatically make a man unable to support his child?

Disability payments are based on what his salary was while he was working. For some men that would be far more than many parents support their children with.

Your second exception doesn't apply to the OP as he was referring to consensual sex. Or at least that's what I get from this:

"Let me bottom line it…any time YOU put yourself in a situation where your penis is inside a woman, having sex, you stand the chance of her becoming pregnant, and you needing to be a father if she chooses to carry said pregnancy to term."

[Solon]

130. Basically I'm talking about ability to pay...

when it comes to disability, which does happen, some guys are just unlucky and get hurt or sick at a young age where disability doesn't even cover life expenses, much less child support. In those cases, the state should pick up the tab, the difference, if you will.

Also, you bottom line is too open for interepretation, to be honest, I would word it differently, as in: "If you willingly and knowingly put your penis inside a women, she runs the chance of being pregnant and you are to take full parental responsibilities if the fetus is carried to term."

[Nicole]

133. Agreed

If the man was disabled at a young age where his disability doesn't cover his own living expenses, then the state should step in & pick up the tab. I'll go you one further & say a man at any age whose income was low enough that his disability pay isn't sufficient to live on should have help.

Your first post didn't say that though & I had a problem with disability automatically excusing anyone from supporting their child. I dated a man on disability who supported two sons on his income. His sons also got checks from S.S. that equaled half his check.

BTW, that wasn't my bottom line, I quoted it from the OP. I guess we just interpreted it differently. Your wording does leave less room for that.

[Katherine Brengle]

109. Well said--

Thanks for writing this--I think it needed to be said as well.

You rock----> :yourock:

[bliss_eternal]

115. What a thoughtful and well-written post--

I'm sorry, I know I wasn't supposed to read it but I'm so glad that I did.

Well done, sir! :hi:

[frustrated_lefty]

131. You're just trying to impress the chicks.

[flvegan]

136. Opinions vary.

Thanks for yours.

[U4ikLefty]

135. Break out that wallet drunken pizza guy...lol

Hope your teenage ass didn't want to go to college.

[GOPFighter]

137. As a man...

...I believe the vast majority of adult men agree with you 100%. If you're not willing to accept the consequences then keep it in your pants.

[gollygee]

139. Yay!

:loveya:

[BoneDaddy]

140. I am a bit confused

This seems to be in reply to something, but I am not sure what. Were there posts by men in here that were in support of absent fathering or lauding unprotected sex? It was the line "sometimes folks need to have it handed to them" that makes me thing this was a response to someone's post.

This is a preaching to the choir post as far as I am concerned, but if you feel like it needs to be said again, go for it.

[Beaverhausen]

172. I think (but could be wrong) it was in response to this issue:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2153382

There are several threads about this "Roe. v Wade" for men going around and the discussions are, shall we say, pretty lively.

[raccoon]

143. Great post. nt

[AngryAmish]

145. You are wrong

It takes 2 to have sex. The responsibility is equal.

[flvegan]

176. Please point out where

I said that it wasn't?

Let me help you with part of it, from the OP: "If you don’t want to be responsible, keep your manhood in check, and your zipper tight." In other words, if you're not ready to be responsible for your half of the care, love, expense of a child, then don't have sex.

[morgan2]

147. You're totally missing the point

The point is that a child is equally the father and mothers. A women shouldn't be able to universally be able to make the decision of whether to abort a child. The only two fair choices, in the case of parents who disagree about whether to have the child or not, would be.

1) It is brought to term and both have to take care of it.
2) It is brought to term and the parent wanting the child is completely responsible for it.

[gollygee]

148. The mother's body is not equally the mother's and the father's

she has a right to do with her uterus what she wants.

[LeftyMom]

149. Once born, the child has the right to the love and support of both

parents, no matter what the circumstances of it's conception. :)

I think the father's rights people have some legitimate points about how fathers are sometimes treated unfairly in family court, but thier apparent implication that the wants of the father supercede the rights of the child does not exactly impress me.

[gollygee]

151. Yes yes yes yes

I agree 100%

:D

[morgan2]

154. so when a women

has sex, she doesn't give up any rights to anyone. But a man having sex, becomes beholden to the woman's choice? Thats just bullshit.

A man doesn't have the option of bearing a child, but that doesnt mean the child is just as much his at it is the mothers. Also a fetus isn't a uterous.

[gollygee]

155. They both give up rights to a baby if one is born

and her uterus belongs to her. If she wishes to share it with a fetus, that's up to her.

And yes the child is just as much the father's as the mother's if one is born, which is why they are equally financially responsible.

[morgan2]

157. Ya that's up to her

she takes the chance of sharing it when she has sex. If she doesnt want the chance of making a fetus in her uterus, she doesnt have sex. And a fetus is both the father and mothers, just as much as the child is.

[gollygee]

No she isn't signing a lease when she has sex

Her uterus at no time stops belonging to her.

If a child was born who needed a parent's kidney in order to survive, there would never be any assumption that the parent had to give up a kidney by law. No one would ever stand for a law saying that the state has a right to determine how that body part is used. In the same way, the state doesn't have a right to determine how a woman's uterus is used.

[Cats Against Frist]

183. There's something fundamentally inhumane about your argument

I can't quite put my finger on it -- and I don't like to argue in these kinds of terms (morals), but you're setting up a clear hierarchy of rights that goes, from "no rights" to "most rights": fetus--->father--->child--->mother.

You're claiming two moral absolutes:

1. The woman's uterus is her own (fetus has no rights of its own, father has no rights over the fate of the fetus).
2. The child supercedes the father (child has rights that come before the father).

On a legal level, because abortion is legal, you can claim no. 1, but, I think, when you start to think about it in terms of moralily (not Christian morality, but ethical morality), that it's really not quite that simple.

I think, by and large, except for a few fringies, that most people consider a fetus in utero to be a potential child. Not by legalese, or heated pro-choice argument, but by something kind of prevailing psychology that lies within us. In most cases, even a woman who has an abortion doesn't take the deed lightly. Expectant parents plan a life, a future around an in utero fetus. They are given names, they are given dreams before they're ever born.

Willingly expectant fathers, in my opinion, have a psychological stake that is equal to that of the mother. The fetus also shares both sets of DNA -- the fetus itself IS the property of the mother and the father. In terms of sensitivity, the feelings and emotions of an expectant father are no less important than those of the mother. Yet, the mother can destroy the potential life, at will. The father has no claim over the child -- because we return to the fact that the child must be carried within the woman's body. There is no situation like it. It is a moral gray area that doesn't, cannot call for glib pronouncements or seemingly hostile, rally-round-the-campfire moments. This is a quiet, human question.

So the mother, only by necessity, has the sole right to destroy the fetus. At whichever whim that she chooses, the father can be imprisoned or have his wages garnished by the state, for the next 18 years, for failure to support the mother's choice. The pro-lifers say, "it's not a choice, it's a child," and by virtue of that, the pro-choice movement MUST consider that fetus a choice. There is not a lot of room for movement -- the legal territory is staked out on the question of, as you said, the right of the mother to 'rent out' her fetus without state intervention -- the mother's choice. The pro-choice position DEMANDS that the fetus be a non-human entity that does not have the full, legal rights of a citizen -- however contradictory it may be to how most people view a potential life to be.

So, then, in 10 hours (or more -- mine was 46) of labor, the fetus suddenly changes into a full-blown person with human rights. At that point, you're saying, the father's rights are to again, be placed behind this other human beings (and the mother's, I assume). The fetus goes from a "choice," a non-human entity, to the most privileged member of the entire enterprise.

I think here is where my problem lies: If the father is informed of the pregnancy, before "fetus" becomes "child," why is the father -- and ONLY the father -- held to understand and have his own rights based upon the potential life? He cannot opt out because the fetus may some day become a child, but the woman may opt out, regardless. At that crucial time, in utero, the father is held to the standard of "living child," while the mother is held to the standard of "non-human entity." The reluctant father is called "deadbeat," while the mother, who can take the physical body of the potential life, and have it sucked out of her womb, to end up in a plastic bag in a garbage dump is not responsible for that life.

That's my sticking point: If, while the fetus is legally considered a non-human entity, why does one have the option to opt out, and the other does not? There can be arguments made that could potentially equate the property of one's livelihood with the property of one's body.

And what of the child, in either state? A deadbeat dad makes for, potentially (but not always) a child in danger of poverty. Abortion makes a "ghost," -- a negative, the zero in the binary. We cannot judge, because we do not have the wisdom, foresight or the cognition to make the determination of which child is better off. I've heard people argue that the "unwanted" child who is aborted is somehow a more preferrable outcome than the "unwanted" child who is alive. In some cases, this may be true. In many cases, it is not.

This is heartbreaking. It's heartbreaking for me to type. I am a woman, and I have a child, and I can still have babies, and I might not want to raise another child. I am also a libertarian, and reluctantly err towards choice, only because I believe there is no absolute answer to the moral question -- and that we all must consider the moral question. There is no one but ourselves who can.

My problem with the primary arguments are that they originate at a place that is somewhat inhumane, but then end up demanding upstanding morality. It's very sad, to me. Particularly coming from liberals. And I'm kind of a cold, cynical postmodernist. Not that much gets to me.

**edited for HTML

[gollygee]

201. I'm a mother

and I'm happily married to my daughter's father.

I would personally not have an abortion unless there were an extreme circumstance because that is my moral choice.

But I'm talking about laws here and yes the laws need to be based on absolutes. And yes you are right about my beliefs regarding those absolutes. I am not willing to give up legal rights to the use of my body in any way just because I would personally not choose to use that right.

[flvegan]

181. Sounds more like you're talking about a car lease.

Just saying...

[ScreamingMeemie]

150. This one time single (did it all myself happily) mom says,

Thank You.

[stepnw1f]

152. Kudos Bro... (nt)

[progressoid]

153. K&R!

[ProfessorGAC]

156. Very Nicely Done!

As to the "tricked" part: Tough! A guy gets fooled, perhaps he'll be wiser for it the next time.
The Professor

[WilliamPitt]

158. I'm amused that you're getting flamed for this

K&R.

:toast:

[mattclearing]

160. Thanks for saying this.

Three cheers for personal responsibility.

[Maraya1969]

162. Just watch a Jerry Springer show and see how many women get

pregnant while lying about being on the pill.

[Extend a Hand]

163. I really doubt that "Jerry Springer's guests" are a representative sample

[file83]

164. Dude, are you trying to "win over the ladies" just to get laid?

I'm kidding. I'm kidding. :hide:

I agree with your post 100%. I'm pro-choice all the way and men should not have any option of "opting out" of child support. Ever.

[eek MD]

166. I don't disagree with what you're saying, BUT

I agree that a woman has a say over whether to have an abortion or not, since it's her body.....BUT

How many people do you know (men AND women alike) who complain about taxes? tolls? atm fees? any number of piddly little ways that money goes out of their pockets. Nobody likes to willingly give up money which they work hard to earn, even in small amounts of a few dollars here and there...let alone many hundreds of dollars a month.

Why would anyone think that people would complain any less about having money come out of their pocket for a child which they didn't want, never get to see, and don't have any involvement with?

What gets on my nerves are the people on this board who call men that complain about it..stupid, greedy, assholes. And who REVEL in the fact that men basically have to remain CELIBATE in order to have any say over whether or not to bring a child into the world...and call anyone who doesn't share their joyous revelry stupid, or a jerk, or an asshole. All of the name-calling I've seen on this issue makes me feel like I'm in grade school again. (well, a grade school with sexual overtones)

I'm glad I don't have a dog in this fight, as it's a rare day that I ever see an offer of sex..and someday when I actually get off my ass and get the dreaded vasectomy, I won't have to worry if the offer ever does come up. (Well, except for the whole STD thing which is another story)

[TahitiNut]

169. Was Vili Fualaau obligated to pay child support ...

... for the first child he fathered with Mary Kay LeTourneau? How about the second?

Her two youngest children, 6-year-old Audrey and 4-year-old Alexis, were both conceived in what were legally Mary Kay's rapes of their father.

[Bunny]

170. Villi and his mother raised those babies while Mary Kay was in

prison for raping him. Why would he pay child support to himself? You should ask if Mary Kay was obligated to pay child support to Villi. Anyway, they're married now, so it's all moot.

[SaveElmer]

171. Child Support Reform...

If a child is brought into this world both parents are responsible. The laws and system of child support ought to reflect that, and they currently do not.

The reason this is such a hot topic is because everyone has a horror story about relationships gone bad, or disputes over parentage etc. And caught up in all that are issues of support and visitation.

Mothers rightly complain about fathers not living up to their support obligations. Fathers complain that support laws are often so rigid many are driven to the point of bankruptcy. Mothers complain when fathers do not meet their obligations the state has little help to offer. In many states, including my own, fathers rightly complain that the mother is by default considered the fitter parent. Fathers withold child support, mothers respond by denying visitation.

All of this only hurts the child

What is needed is a system that seperates child support from the relationship between the estranged parents. A state run system of support pooling would seem to be the best way to do that. IN this way, each parent is held accountable for providing the level of support they are obligated to, it is easier to make sure money is going to the support of the child, and it removes child support as a weapon between dueling parents.

[flvegan]

180. I agree.

There has to be a better way of making it all work out for the betterment of the kiddo. Unfortunately, at least here in Florida, there's little "enforcement" unless the woman (simply stating that as it's usually the case) stays on top of her individual case.

I also don't agree with the father witholding child support and the mother denying visitation (or vice versa). Get your court Order and live by it. Don't leverage your position by using the child.

[Beaverhausen]

173. Again, you nail it

:yourock:

[notadmblnd]

174. They do have an opt out

if men don't want children, there are prevenative steps they can take. Abstenance, condoms and steralization are just a few.

There's one thing everyone should learn when young, it's that, one should never assume your partner is going to take responsibility for birth control.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

175. great post.

[IronLionZion]

177. sperm can make a baby, but it takes a real manly man to be a father

and I'd like to remind all that there is more than one type of sex :evilgrin: There are options that don't result in pregnancy.

[fleabert]

184. I've always liked you, now I really respect you too.

thank you.

[Catherine Vincent]

188. How much you wanna bet all 24 recs were from women?

heh heh!

[IronLionZion]

189. well at least 1 rec was from me

responsible pro-choice male checking in :patriot:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

191. All I Will Say Is Demand Men Have Equal Rights To Custody Then.

That's all I really have to say. I do think if there is a child the father in the overwhelming amount of circumstances carries responsibility in supporting it. That's not my issue.

What I do feel passionate about is that since fathers are 50% responsible for the child they should be able to win 50% of custody of that child from the courts. Though it has gotten better, there is still far too much sexism towards men when it comes to custody issues in court. Would you fight as passionately for our rights to equal custody as you would for the issues in the OP? If you would, then I thank you. If you wouldn't, then you don't have a leg to stand on.

[flvegan]

193. Actually, no...I wouldn't.

Equal rights to custody? Yes. Those "rights" determined in a proper court. I would always say that the child belongs with the fitter, custodial parent.

Would I fight as passionately for the rights of a man to have equal custody? Yes, if the father was as fit a parent as the mother, and the Court exercised a discretion that was unfounded. I will NOT, however, fight for "equal custody" simply based on 1/2 of the participants being the father. Same as I'd not fight for an abusive man to have "equal custody" as the mother, simply based on his 50% "stake" in the child.

I'd fight for the best interest of the child. And I have two legs to stand on, there.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

196. My Apologies... Yes. Under Those Circumstances.

Fuck the parent who doesn't give their child every ounce of love that child deserves. Fuck em.

I should've been more precise in what I meant. The 50/50 issue I am fighting for is with all other relevant things equal, namely both being fit to have custody.

[flvegan]

212. Don't apoligize.

You're right. We just didn't get to the median together. Now we do.

[gollygee]

200. I think whenever possible there should be joint custody

with each parent getting 50% of the time and there being no child support for that reason.

But if the child winds up with one parent, the other parent should pay child support no matter whether they want to or not.

[bunyip]

194. Well put

Liberals for Personal Responsibility :evilgrin:

Its true that some women will lie about taking the pill, because they want a kid. A thirty-something friend of the family did so, and wonders why Boyfriend left her when she admitted it wasn't a mistake. To his credit, he pays his child-support and demands his access rights.

Another personal anecdote - when I was a teenager, on two occasions I had to keep my virginity because a willing girl I was with was turned off by me fumbling around for a condom instead of going-with-the-flow. Even if she said she was on the Pill.

Killed the moment I guess. I don't regret it!

[TransitJohn]

197. Agree completely.

From a single dad....I usually feel like no one understands what it takes to be a single father. But, you nailed this one.

[flvegan]

202. Thanks, but

I don't understand what it takes to be a single father. I mean, I think that I know what it takes, but I certainly don't know the real-life, everyday what-it-takes. You're at least head and shoulders above me. You saying that I "nailed this one" is soooo appreciated, coming from the "front ranks" if you will.

Good on you for being the dad that so many won't be.

Much respect, much respect.

[TransitJohn]

211. you too

:toast: :hi:

[entanglement]

204. LOL dude, you've (just) completed your conquest of the remaining

DU women who don't visit the Lounge :)

[flvegan]

206. How so, poster?

I don't see women as a conquest in any form, so your post is a little lost on me.

I'll wait here for your response...

Oh, and if you have an issue with my time in the Lounge...well, then the ego will just need to absorb the beating it might take from a Lizard making a good post (to wit, you have no/little response).

Have at it...

[entanglement]

208. OMG, I was kidding

me-> :spank: <-myself

/remind self never to post flippant replies to (what I now see) is a serious thread

[flvegan]

210. Ha!

No, post the flippant replies, just use the ole "sarcasm" smilie or something. Flippant is funny in the right context/forum!

[tblue37]

215. Now that's what I call representin'! (eom)

[DarkmoonIkonoklast]

219. RIGHT ON!!!! Well said, my Brother!

MMOr, to put it another way,

MMIf you ain't gonna stick,
MMMMDon't go dippin' your wick!

MMOr, yet another...

MMIf you're old enough to breed,
MMMMWatch where you plant your seed!

[mongo]

224. I agree

I've pointed out in a few threads, that this is not always fair to men, but that it is the only possible equitable arrangement. In fact, it is more fair to all.

Okay, okay… so you think that you “got tricked” by her. Tricked into what? Helping create a child you don’t care about? Yeah, bro…that’s her goal. She doesn’t care about that kid. She doesn’t think about that kid not having his/her daddy around. I mean, that’s a mother’s natural tendency, right? Ohhhhh…wait…I forgot. You got tricked because she wanted you to marry her…be there forever. Right. Considering the average woman would want to trick a man into being her husband. Since “tricking” a man into being a father is such a fine way to create a family, I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt. I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen, but puh-lease…to create a movement out of it is just…just…bullshit.

This does happen. My ex-BIL can testify to this. Men can get stuck holding the bag, as relationships are supposed to be based on trust, but any other arrangement would be much worse for women. And as you say, this is not the common scenario.

[ThomCat]

226. Cool post.

:applause: