Savage Love
My ex is getting crazier, but I can't bring myself to cut him off. What can I do?
By Dan Savage
I was hanging out with a guy who is in a relationship. I told him nothing could happen, and we decided to keep things friendly. A while ago, I made the drunken mistake of climbing into the backseat of a car with him, and things got racy pretty quickly. He asked if I was on birth control; I told him yes, because I was, and he penetrated me and came inside me after one thrust.
The next day, I got all emotional, and he's since stopped talking to me because I freaked. Here we are a bit later, and I just had a pregnancy scare. Had I been pregnant, I would have had an abortion. If I'd actually been facing an abortion, I would have called and told him. Would that have been the right thing to do?
I wouldn't have asked for money or support; I would have told him solely because it would have felt wrong not to. I had some feeling, like he should know — because he has a right to know, you know? I can't imagine I'm the only woman who's been faced with a "to tell or not to tell" situation. Weigh in?
— Classy Lady
A woman who is pregnant and has decided to have an abortion should tell the guy who knocked her up about the pregnancy and her decision to abort... unless she sincerely believes — or even legitimately suspects — that the guy is gonna bully, badger, and/or do violence to her in an attempt to prevent her from choosing abortion.
Guys need to know when they've dodged a bullet, CL. Being made aware that he came this close to eighteen years' worth of child-support payments can lead a guy to be more cautious with his spunk — and, in some cases, more likely to support choice.
Take the guy you fucked: he needs to know that not all birth-control methods are foolproof and not every woman who claims to be on birth control is telling the truth and/or being diligent about taking those pills every day. Hearing that almost-a-daddy bullet whiz past his head may convince him to put on that condom the next time he's fucking a woman he isn't serious about, even if she is (or claims to be) on birth control.
And... um... gee. This bit is going to get me scratched off NARAL's Christmas card list, which will be a real bummer (last year's card was great: "The Crusades, the Inquisition, clerical sex-abuse scandals — all of this could have been prevented. Happy holidays from your friends at NARAL"), but I gotta be me. A guy — a good, decent, nonabusive guy — should be told about an impending abortion so he can, if he feels the abortion is a mistake, make a case for keeping the baby. It's still the woman's choice in the end — there should be absolutely no question about that — but the fetus, if not the uterus, is his, too. It's only fair that the same guy who would be on the hook for child-support payments if you decide to go through with the pregnancy be heard out before you follow through on your decision to end it.
I'm a twenty-four-year-old mostly straight girl with a great GGG boyfriend. My problem is with an ex-boyfriend. We met when I was on a break from school. A few months after we got together, I went back to finish my degree in a different state. He was wary about a long-distance thing, but I wanted to try it, and I made promises about our future that I probably shouldn't have. Then the day after we broke up, one of my ex-boyfriends died. I was a total mess for months and completely incapable of dealing with the breakup, which was hard for the guy I'd just broken up with. We wound up ending things on a really bad note.
But it's still not over. He hasn't ever gotten over our relationship, and every few months he calls or e-mails with some new issue or wanting to talk. He's been verbally abusive, and I often want to cut off contact, but because of the death of my other ex-boyfriend, I'm really scared about losing contact with exes. He told me he almost killed himself a couple of years ago; I don't know if it's true, but I can believe it. He accused me of raping him — saying that he'd consented to sex with the understanding that we'd be together forever, and when we broke up, I violated the terms of the agreement under which he had consented to have sex with me. Now he's demanding that I admit to having raped him and threatening to post that I raped him on my Facebook wall.
I don't know what to do. I have no interest in getting back together, but I know I hurt him and I feel responsible. I'd do a lot of things differently in hindsight, but I don't think I'm a rapist. I know this sounds like a typical crazy-ex story, and I should probably just cut him off, but that feels wrong and I'm worried about him.
— Freaked Out Feeling Stuck
Everyone you've ever dated — including the boy you're with now — is fated to die. (You, too, FOFS.) Which means that, as the years grind on, you will eventually lose contact with each and every one of your ex-boyfriends, should you be fortunate enough to outlive them all. You will also one day lose contact with your current boyfriend, if you stay together, or he will one day lose contact with you if you precede him in dropping dead. It might help you cope with the coming inevitable losses, FOFS, if you cut your crazy ex out of your life now, while he's still alive. Think of it as an exercise in letting go.
Stop taking his calls, stop returning his e-mails, and block him on Facebook. You can urge him — in one final e-mail — to move the fuck on already, to get help, and to get a grip. Tell him that you're both too young to waste the rest of your lives processing a failed relationship, and you can add, perhaps in a P.S., that consensual sex in the early stages of a relationship — the stage at which dreamy, ill-advised discussions about a shared future are most common — does not retroactively become rape should that relationship end.
Finally, FOFS, while your ex sounds nutty and vindictive, your reasons for staying in touch with him are slightly batshit. People lose contact with exes all the time. Get over it. If you've convinced yourself that hashing shit out with your manipulative ex is the compassionate, loving thing to do, you're wrong — it's not helping him and it's making you miserable. Or so you say. The longer you go on helping your ex pick at his scabs, the more you look like the kind of controlling, vindictive ex who doesn't really want her exes to get over her.
HEY, EVERYBODY: There's a bill moving through the state legislature in Tennessee that would make it a crime for a teacher to say the word "gay." If this bill passes, a bullied gay kid wouldn't be able to go to a teacher or school administrator for help — as if things weren't already hard enough for gay kids in the Bible Belt. More info at www.wesaygay.com.
Find the Savage Lovecast (my weekly podcast) every Tuesday at thestranger.com/savage.
Commentarium (189 Comments)
"the fetus, if not the uterus, is his, too"
really now, really? come on. my uterus has the capacity of belonging to a man?
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.
:D I laughed when I read that part as well. It's not 'perfectly' phrased, but the point comes through nonetheless. Still though, that's prety funny.
35FoF9 Thanks for the article! I hope the author does not mind if I use it for my course work...
God that wooshed right over your ignorant head didn't it jac?
She meant the uterus never belongs to a man. But continue to jump down people's throats if you suspect even the slightest insult against a woman's right to choose.
calm down. you don't think her defensiveness about her reproductive autonomy is even a *little* bit founded? her misinterpretation of that sentence doesn't mean she's ignorant, it means she's on her toes. many of us are, understandably, if you'd look around for a second about the culture you live in.
chill out. check your privilege.
For the record, I was thinking the exact same thing. Wanna judge me? go right ahead. I can guarantee you I have more academic credentials than you do.
Lord knows that credentials are what matter.
jac is hypersensitive and looking to find offense wherever she can manufacture it. Chill out.
@moi - oh dear me, I profusely apologise in advance for thinking that I might judge you. I had no idea that you were a professional student. Wanker.
I'm skipping down to the comments after the first letter. Fantastic advice, Dan. A woman's right to choose does not supersede a man's right to voice his opinion.
But a man's voiced opinion really doesn't (and shouldn't) have any effect on a woman's right to choose. If you don't want your sperm to make a baby, make sure it doesn't, before conception. If you want a baby, make sure to find a woman who's on the same page (and for goodness' sake, contribute equally to childcare once the kid is born.)
@AT (insert Star Wars joke here) -- amen.
That's so easy to say, you know, "a man's right to voice his opinion". It is still the woman who has to go through 9+ months of having a foetus inside her, it is still her who will have to deal with the morning sickness, the stretch marks and everything else that comes with pregnancy, not to mention giving birth. So I think my right to choose will supersede the man's right to voice his opinion, always, because it is me who has to give birth to a child and raise it.
Ha "slightly batshit." Love it.
Hmmm, not altogether sure holding onto the word "gay" is a good idea since its meaning has almost entirely changed for the worst. Maybe it is time for a new word to take shape.
From what I hear, the bill bans any mention of homosexuality at all. It would certainly make their theatre department think differently! (sarcasm there, I majored in theatre in college and I am pretty damn straight)
That is dumb as fuck. "Gay" means "homosexual" more than it means "stupid."
And btw, "gay" is actually a more acceptable word than "homosexual" when it comes to describing gay people -- https://www.care2.com/causes/civil-rights/blog/gay-or-homosexual-does-wor...
Even still, homosexual is homosexual.
A guy's right to choose ends when we recklessly leave our spunk in other people's uteri. Why is this so hard to understand? I learned that from my first girlfriend in high school, and it has served me well. The uterus doesn't belong to a man, unless he is renting it from a surrogate or something. Of course I should be told about whether I dodged a bullet or will make child-support payments. But the choice isn't mine anymore at that point. Which is why I don't raw-dog randoms.
Brilliant. Thank you!
Men can start claiming fetuses as soon as they can gestate and birth them. When they figure that out, single fathers can start suing horny women for child support payments.
Hard to understand? Why it's positively moronic! You, sir, are the king of the morons. I salute you!
@Publius go die in a hole before your stupidity taints this website anymore
Regarding the Tennessee bill, Dan, I think maybe people should take George Takei up on his offer.
LW#2 - I lost a friend who was like an older sister me when I was 18 and she was 21 and I went through a long period where I couldn't bear to lose anyone else, so I held on to friendships with people who weren't that great for me and relationships with guys who just weren't right for me. But eventually I realized that my emotional hoarding wasn't leaving me room to let in the truly great and world-opening people I really wanted and needed in my life. So don't let the death of a former love make you think you have to hold on to absolutely everything just in case you'll regret the loss later. The ex that is harassing you is an abusive bully and he isn't saying the things he is saying because he loves you and isn't over you - he is saying them to maintain some sort of control over you. Just cut him off.
20 years ago I was told I was gonna be a daddy but nothing was expected of me. 3 years later I was a single father because dealing drugs was easier than raising a baby she claimed she wanted. And she claimed she was on birth control at the time of conception, which later turned out to be a lie.
Dan is absolutely right that the man deserves a chance to be heard, because he is responsible for conception and for the long term consequences of it. I had to sign an affidavit of financial responsibility to get my name on my son's birth certificate. If I refused, do you think a court would have said, "well, sorry, Mom, but you let him off the hook years ago, we aren't gonna make him pay now that you're broke." I don't think so.
Its a woman's body and her choice ultimately. But a responsible man has a right to be heard. Period. A woman's rights DO NOT cancel out a man's rights just because it makes her uncomfortable, and more than the reverse.
A responsible man has the right to wear a condom. Why in the world didn't you take responsibility for your spunk before it landed next to her eggs? What is so hard to understand: if you don't want a baby, wear a condom or get a vasectomy or lobby for the male birth control already. Enough of the "she claimed she was on birth control and she lied" whining already.
CWF, that sucks, but responsible men also take responsibility for their actions. Unintended consequences and all. AT, I agree. I don't understand why people trust each other so much. "Well she said she was on birth control, so..." Who cares? People lie. It's shitty, but it's true. At least if a guy was wearing a condom/pulls out/gets a vasectomy, he knows for sure that he's actively trying to prevent a pregnancy, instead of putting his faith in someone else.
AT: I thought asking and being told "I am on birth control" by a woman I was monogamous and living with was being responsible. But you know being 19 at the time and her being 26, I may have under estimated her ability to lie. This was not a one-night stand.
Here's the thing. If you're in a relationship you should be able to trust the person, this goes for both genders. When you get lied to and manipulated, and then have to raise a child you did not choose to have because the person who lied to you manipulated the situation then skipped out on you AND the child, I think that's a pretty good argument for BOTH parents to at least be heard.
I support a woman's ultimate right to choose. But what the law does NOT recognize is a father's rights after the birth. Its entirely up to the woman to 1) inform him when ever she damn well pleases and 2) force him to pay support regardless of if he knew, if he had a say, if she lied, if she told him she didn't want him involved years earlier, etc. etc. etc. I've lived through and/or seen dozens of ways women manipluate the situation to their advantage YEARS after the fact.
Equality and responsibility cuts both ways. Seems too often women refuse to admit this inconvenient fact.
CWF: I'm sorry you were 19, but really it's just proof that we need sex ed starting really young. But: if men don't want to have babies they need to make sure they don't. They can do this by: not sleeping with women, wearing condoms when they do, getting vasectomies, lobbying our woman-friendly (not) government for other forms of male birth control or being lucky.
Also, if you have a child, you need to do your best to take care of that child, man or woman. Man AND woman.
A child is expensive and your insistence that only the woman pay for this child if she "lies and manipulates" (which sounds kind of like a misogynistic trope to me, this image of a "manipulative woman") is wrong. Do you even know how expensive and time-consuming children can be? You need to do your part.
Anyway, I'm intrigued by what you mean by "father's rights after the birth." Care to explain?
It seems like he does know how expensive and time-consuming children can be because he is the one left raising the child. Where is the blame directed at the mother for ditching out on her child?
Sounds like she's suffering some sort of responsibility because of drug-dealing, so there's the blame?
"When you get lied to and manipulated, and then have to raise a child you did not choose to have because the person who lied to you manipulated the situation then skipped out on you AND the child, I think that's a pretty good argument for BOTH parents to at least be heard." I don't understand what you mean by "both parents to be heard." Heard about what? What are you saying that you didn't have a say in? Again, this sucks that it happened to you. Sounds like you got involved with a shitty person, but you have to admit, this exact type of situation happens to women a lot more than it does men. How many mothers are raising kids on their own after being ditched by their partners, compared to single fathers?
Also, you don't "have to raise a child you did not choose to have." Adoption is always available to people who don't want to be parents. Especially if that person is manipulated into that position, as you were, CWF.
I stand by my first point: people lie. It's shitty. Sometimes you will be the victim of said lie. That's why it's easier to make sure on your own, that you are protecting yourself.
Just re-read your comment, CWF. Are you saying that you should have a say in whether or not you have to pay child support, if you were under the impression that your girlfriend was on birth control? You might not have had a choice with her lies and manipulation, but you had a choice to wear a condom. You chose not to. I doubt she made you had sex without a condom, while you begged to put one on. And yeah, you SHOULD be able to trust your partners, and in a perfect world, you could. This isn't a perfect world, people lie, cheat, steal, and intentionally manipulate people they claim to love. That's why you need to look out for you.
A man does have a right not to pay for an unplanned pregnancy. He can terminate his parental rights & responsibilities before birth. If she chooses to have, and keep, the baby anyway, that's her right too. He can't force her to have an abortion, and she can't force him to pay. They each have their own choices to make.
See answers below, J. Stop spreading ignorance.
I know it's been done successfully before. I'm trying to Google to find the news story.
Not in most states. In PA you can be subpoenaed and required to take a paternity test. If you are found to be the father you will be required to pay with penalties that can include jail time for failure to do so.
The laws are out-of-date and un-just. They should be changed.
@PMO - No, I'm sorry but a man's rights end when a man recklessly leaves spunk in uteri. This is the official position of Professor Huh of the Moron Institute.
I'm sorry, but is no one else bothered by the way that LW#1's guy apparently interpreted "yes I am on birth control" as implicit permission to have unprotected sex with her? Those are two vastly different questions, and I don't care how drunk you are: if you know that you have zero self control and are about to come, it's even more important to make sure the person you are sleeping with is OK with what you want to do. Not not NOT OK.
I am.
Also, I'm bothered by the fact that the LW didn't feel like she had an automatic right to ask him for abortion money or support, were she to actually be pregnant and have an abortion (or the child). Again, it takes 2 to tango.
Indeed. And the question of STDs hasn't arisen at all, but casual sex should never be unprotected, regardless of other BC.
I concur, and I'm shocked I had to read down this far before someone brought that up.
Disagree. I think saying "I'm on b.c." & then letting him put his uncovered penis in her IS implicit permission for unprotected sex. I think it was foolish of her to do so, but I don't think he mis-read her.
As for automatic right to ask...she has one. But he should have the right to say "I can't afford an unplanned pregnancy, don't have it...or raise it yourself".
Yes, Kevin, he has the right to say whatever the hell he wants (except for shouting "Fire" in a movie theater and a few other things), but that doesn't mean he'll be excused from paying child-support, which she can "coerce" out of him with the help of the Courts.
Men should have "choice" in the same way that women have. He can't force her to have it, she can't force him to either. Yes, she can keep him on the hook. That is unjust.
Excuse me, if the girl from #1 is so concerned about truth and righteousness, maybe she should tell the guy's girlfriend of what kind of a jerk she's dating? And it's not like he raped her, she agreed by telling him she's on birth control. What's wrong with having sex and coming inside while you're on birth control? Isn't that what pills are for? Or was he supposed to put on a condom ar maybe two? The only thing here that's wrong is that he's in a relationship, but still fucks another girl, which is aware of him being in a relationship.
p.s. excuse my English, I'm from Europe.
You don't sound like you're from Europe (unless you're from some ignorant part of Europe). A man should always wear a condom, unless she and the woman have agreed in advance that they want a baby. It is not just a woman's responsibility to make sure she doesn't get pregnant. Plus, condoms are so much easier than hormonal birth control, which really is a pain in the butt.
Wear a condom every time you have PIV sex and stop whining! Giving birth is like a thousand times more difficult for women that you wearing condoms for the rest of your life.
"unless *he and the woman".
Also, wearing condoms is also way easier and less intrusive/painful/expensive than having abortions.
Have a nice day.
"What's wrong with having sex and coming inside while you're on birth control?"
Gonorrhea, chlamydia, HPV (which can lead to CANCER), PID, syphillis, hepatitis, bacterial vaginosis, HIV... Just to name a few. I've read that about 1 in 5 people will have a STI at some point, and up to half of them never show symptoms. That would suck.
Pardon me, but the author was not concerned about any STD's. She got scared as she almost got pergnant. How can you almost get pregnant? You either do or don't. Pills if used properly are way safer than condoms ( for avoiding pregnancy, not STD's of course). I suppose she knew the guy well enough to know if he has something so she let him stick his penis inside.
AT, you said that hormonal contraception is a pain in the butt. But the author chose the pills. So maybe it is not too painful/intrusive/expensive for her. And nothing is 100%, so why have sex in the first place?
Anyway, you are missing the point of my comment.
jules, the problem is that you keep focusing on what SHE chose to do. What about what HE chose to do? It takes two to tango. The dude chose to do nothing. (well, as you pointed out he chose to cheat on his gf).
You know what's safer than just hormonal bc? bc AND a condom! And sometimes just condoms, if used properly, depends on the condom/bc.
What's wrong "with having sex and coming inside when you're on birth control" is that the responsibility for pregnancy still rests solely on the girl. That's what's wrong.
"A man should always wear a condom, unless she and the woman have agreed in advance that they want a baby."
I am a woman. I am on birth control. My boyfriend and I do not want a baby. Both of us being clean, and in a monogamous relationship, we decided to stop using condoms. Sex feels better without them, and personally, I don't find it that hard to take a tiny pill every morning. If I lied and told my boyfriend that I was on birth control, and I wasn't? Then that pregnancy would be my fucking fault. As human beings, we trust each other. If someone lies to you, then they are the responsible party.
Women have the ultimate control over what happens to their bodies - and that includes the decision to let a man come inside her. Yes, safe sex shouldn't just be the woman's responsibility, but that doesn't mean all the blame is on the man. Men are not idiots. They too are aware of the consequences of having sex without protection.
Right, it's not just a woman's responsibility or that all the blame is on men. If anything it seems like most of the blame is still on women.
Sort of related: do you not find it odd (perhaps unfair is too strong of a word) that there is no male pill yet?
p.s. even bc fails.
I don't know too much about it, but it's probably harder to design a pill that would effectively prevent pregnancy on the man's side. It's pretty easy to do it with women - regulate her hormones, give her extra estrogen or progesterone or whatever so her body doesn't want to house a fetus. I don't really know how it would work in men, especially since their bodies are constantly creating new sperm. I'm sure it's possible, it just seems more complicated. Who knows? Maybe some ambitious scientists are working on it now.
And, most men would probably never take it. They'd be too freaked out it would damage their junk forever, and would probably choose to stick to condoms. Stick to the familiar if slightly less pleasurable.
Condoms fail too! https://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/bc_chart.html#
Everything fails, this is why a combination of male/female birth control usually works better than any single-sex measure.
I don't think it's fair to say that most men wouldn't take it. If (when) they start to see that kids are equally their responsibility then maybe they will, fear of junk-damage or not. (Women still take bc, despite their fear or damage- such as increased risk of strokes and dryness and other potentially deadly/unpleasant things).
Okay, my (internet) logorrhea is getting the better of me. Ciao!
Obviously condoms fail. There is no fail safe birth control, because you always have to take human error into account. I think the point is that, at least with condoms, guys are more in control of whether or not they'll get someone pregnant, as opposed to relying on only their partner to take care of the birth control aspect of sex. To quote huh, "A guy's right to choose ends when we recklessly leave our spunk in other people's uteri."
AT, Europe has plenty of ignorant people, the same as anywhere else. Ever heard of Berlusconi? The BNP? Not everyone is a hip young urbanite, no matter where you go.
I realized I may have misunderstood your first comment: "A man should always wear a condom, unless she and the woman have agreed in advance that they want a baby. It is not just a woman's responsibility to make sure she doesn't get pregnant. Plus, condoms are so much easier than hormonal birth control, which really is a pain in the butt."
I thought you were trying to saying that a man should wear a condom, instead of a woman choosing birth control, because it's a man responsibility to prevent pregnancy. Now i think you were saying both should be used? I agree with that, of course, but I don't think failure to utilize 2+ methods of contraception is an implicit agreement between two people that they will have a baby.
@nope: I was trying to make a bad joke that obviously didn't pan out. (I'm from Europe too and make mistakes quite often.)
@lm: there should be an implicit understanding between 2 fertile people of the opposite sex that having sex (with or without 2+ methods of contraception) has consequences, one of which is possible pregnancy, which can and will change lives, including the man's.
I'm just looking forward to the day when men take equal responsibility for the children, "lying women" bs or not.
(Is your point that because a woman sometimes lies than she shouldn't expect child support? Because I disagree. If a man wants to make sure he's not going to have to pay child support he needs to take control of the one thing he has control over: his body. You know, minimize his chances and all. Plus, by the point when he needs to pay child support, a child is involved and her or his well-being should be above other things.)
"A man should always wear a condom, unless she and the woman have agreed in advance that they want a baby."
This implies condoms should always be used, regardless of whether or not the woman is on birth control.
"there should be an implicit understanding between 2 fertile people of the opposite sex that having sex (with or without 2+ methods of contraception) has consequences, one of which is possible pregnancy, which can and will change lives, including the man's."
This makes sense. If you have sex with someone, be aware that there are consequences. But what if the man and woman agree to use the pill as a method of birth control? Is it still the man's job to wear a condom even if there is already another form of birth control agreed on? What if the man wears a condom? Is the woman required to also take the pill even though they both agreed on using a condom?
My issue is that your argument implies that the man must always wear a condom, and if he doesn't, he is failing to take responsibility, even if he and his partner agreed to use a hormonal contraceptive instead. If the man decides to forgo a condom because his partner told him she was on the pill, he is not failing to be responsible. She is. It would be the same if a guy lied and said he put on a condom when he hadn't (though that's easier to catch).
And, I'm not necessarily talking about child support, I'm referring more to the idea of responsibility during sex. Once another human being is in question, more issues come up. Ideally, the person you choose to have sex with is also going to be someone mature and responsible enough to share responsibility should a pregnancy occur, but, shit happens. Both parties should support the child, obviously. But if you're going to wag your finger at someone, then it should be the girl who lied about birth control.
If a man does wear a condom, and the woman gets pregnant, does that mean he shouldn't pay child support? He did what he could to prevent his sperm from entering her uterus, she's the one who chose not to take the pill to prevent it from attaching it to her egg.
I don't know, lm, we disagree about general principles it seems. Replace "wear a condom" with "take responsibility for his spunk" in the first sentence.
My answer to your last question is yes- because accidents do happen and it's not just the woman's fault for the pregnancy, lie or not, which is obvious to me. Even pills fail, so sometimes it's not because she lied, you know? Plus, a pregnancy (or an abortion) is so much harder on a woman's body that she's implicitly already paying for it (the sex; or the lie) more than he is. Blame nature, but you know, both take responsibility.
This is why good and truthful communication and responsible sex are the best!
(Done and done btw. Thanks for the e-conversation.)
lm makes the most sense in this thread.
Okay, AT, this is I think going to be an "agree to disagree" situation, and I appreciate your civility in a format this is often the exact opposite, but I just wanted to double-check: if a man wearing and a woman not on birth control have sex and she gets pregnant, then he shouldn't have to pay child support? Or did I misunderstand your "yes" answer?
My opinion, is basically, a man who chooses to ejaculate into the body of a woman who is taking some form of birth control IS being responsible. is it better to utilize more than one form of contraception to avoid pregnancy? Of course! But if both parties agree to one, regardless of who takes the actual physical control of that, then both are equally responsible.
And just out of curiosity, if a man pulls out, is that responsible? Like condoms, it's effective if used properly!
*THAT is often the exact opposite, not this
*if a man wearing a CONDOM
Gah. Brain fail.
AT won't answer, so I'll answer on their behalf...a man is a sperm-spewing scumbag who deserves no rights. It doesn't matter if he gets a vasectomy and wears a condom, if she somehow gets pregnant, he has no rights, to the fetus, to his own wallet, nothing. Sexism at it's finest.
You got that right. AT is a sexist. Instead of desiring equal rights, she wants all the rights to go to women. Men deserve no say and any screw-up is the direct result of their actions.
lm, actually we probably agree more than we disagree.
I guess my personal preference is something other than hormonal bc (for women or men, although the latter is a strange point to make, seeing how there is no hormonal bc for men), because hormonal bc comes with a whole bunch of risks that other methods -such as condom use (for women or men) or pulling out or the rhythm method or vasectomies or tube-tying don't come with.
And J, you are completely hyperbolizing - the laws are quite progressive on that issue, get used to it. It's useless and absurd to lobby for men's rights to get abortions, seeing how men don't have uteri. Adios.
>the laws are quite progressive on that issue
You mean progressive in favor of sexist benefits for women? Yes. If you mean progressive towards men, you'll have to get specific, because I don't see any being the slightest bit progressive towards men.
>It's useless and absurd to lobby for men's rights to get abortions, seeing how men don't have uteri.
It's called disclaiming parental responsibility before birth, and there's an entire movement working on making it a legal option. As it should be. Then men would have 2/3rds of the rights that women have.
Progressive because they acknowledge basic biology.
Repeat after me: No Uterus = No Opinion. And this is why your movement is failing. :) (although, one never knows, a couple more Republicans in the House and Senate and it may succeed... Sigh)
>Progressive because they acknowledge basic biology.
That's sort of the complete opposite of the definition of "progressive", which generally means rising above the behavior of animals, and considering the rights of the disadvantaged (the poor, the weak, etc).
>Repeat after me: No Uterus = No Opinion.
Well at least you're unabashedly sexist. That lets people know that your mind is both biased AND completely closed.
>although, one never knows, a couple more Republicans in the House and Senate and it may succeed... Sigh)
Republicans would not support "Roe v Wade for men"...just like they don't support it for women either. I guess I'm not surpised someone so closed-minded is also so unaware.
">Repeat after me: No Uterus = No Opinion.
Well at least you're unabashedly sexist. That lets people know that your mind is both biased AND completely closed."
No, you are! You are saying that men SHOULD be able to tell women what women should do with their bodies (how surprising, a misogynist believing THAT. Sigh).
If you don't want babies/don't want to pay child-support do your best to avoid that before the fact, and if somehow you still end up impregnating some unfortunate woman, be a responsible person and help that woman raise your child. Are these principles too complicated for you?
Anyway, go ahead and keep blabbering if you want, but be aware that I'm done making the points that a) a woman's right to her body trumps a man's right to her body) and b) both parents need to be responsible - at least financially - for the well-being of their child.
>You are saying that men SHOULD be able to tell women what women should do with their bodies (how surprising, a misogynist believing THAT. Sigh).
I have never said that. I do not believe that. Women may do what they like. Except force men to pay for a child they don't want.
>Are these principles too complicated for you?
Your principle is simple, as are your arguments. I do not agree with it though. Do you support a woman's right to an abortion? Her right to adopt-away/abandon? But you do not support any rights for men. You are the only sexist here.
>I'm done making the points that a) a woman's right to her body trumps a man's right to her body)
You're blindly, closed-mindedly advancing the same argument, even when I've never said, and don't believe, a man's "claim" to her body trumps her rights.
>b) both parents need to be responsible - at least financially - for the well-being of their child.
Do you NOT support a woman's right to an abortion, or to adopt-away/abandon? Because those are being irresponsible towards the fetus. Or are women allowed to be irresponsible, but men are not?
You're not just sexist, you're also a pro-life-er?
Pro-choice.
J, I'm going to quote someone above: "Men can start claiming fetuses as soon as they can gestate and birth them."
Do you not agree with b: both parents need to be responsible - at least financially - for the well-being of their child?
J, also, giving a child up for adoption is not the same as abandoning a child. And nobody here said it's okay for a woman to abandon her child. IT is NOT okay. In the same way, it is not okay for men to abandon their children, which they indisputably do when they don't pay child-support (and otherwise take care of that child).
You're pro-choice? So women get choice (abort, adopt-away/abandon, keep), men do not (they must pay). Sexist.
>I'm going to quote someone above: "Men can start claiming fetuses as soon as they can gestate and birth them."
I'm not trying to claim a fetus...I'm saying men should have the same right as women have to choose to NOT have a fetus (because women can abort or adopt-away/abandon).
>Do you not agree with b: both parents need to be responsible - at least financially - for the well-being of their child?
Women have the right to choose to not accept responsibility. They can abort or adopt-away/abandon. Men should have a similar right to choose to not accept responsibility. Equal rights.
>And nobody here said it's okay for a woman to abandon her child.
It's a legal option for all women in the entire U.S. You object to "safe haven" laws apparently?
THIS "I'm not trying to claim a fetus...I'm saying men should have the same right as women have to choose to NOT have a fetus (because women can abort or adopt-away/abandon)."
Is proof that you are incapable of accepting basic biological reality.
But really, men have the right to NOT have a fetus. Actually, it is the one right they have, because of BASIC BIOLOGY.
Men do not have the right, in any meaningful sense of the term, to HAVE a fetus, because the fetus lives inside a woman's body, and men don't have rights to women's bodies (not anymore, not since they abolished slavery).
Why is it so hard for you to accept that? Do you also have a hard time accepting that gravity exists?
p.s. stop conflating the different meanings of the words "abandon" to suit your purposes.
Really though, I wasted too much time on this. Goodbye.
I tried to reply to your irrelevant quote, and now you're splitting semantic hairs. Duh, of course men can't carry a fetus.
You know my point, you just can't face it because you don't wish to face your own sexism.
I am not doing anything with the meaning of abandon.
Women have 2 ways to choose to not have to deal with a child...abortion, or adopt-away/legally-abandon after birth. Sexist laws gives men no choices, from the moment of conception, other than to pay. Men should get a choice to not have to pay. The woman can still decide to abort, adopt-away/legally-abandon, or keep. That would be nearly equal rights.
Hey J, just wanted to voice my support.
As a feminist and pro-choicer, I'd like to see BOTH genders given equal rights on how to deal with a pregnancy. I believe in contract law between the "parents". If a woman doesn't want the baby, she has the option to abort or adopt. If a man doesn't want the baby, he signs away his rights/responsibilities. This doesn't mean the man can force the woman to keep or give away. The woman maintains her CHOICE. Its obvious, right?
Thanks, I agree. It's good to know women support equality too. Actually, a woman lawyer (Melanie McCulley) was one of the first who advocated that men should have choice, just like women do.
@AT My issue is that you pick and choose your feminism. If a woman becomes pregnant, then its obviously the man's fault for being reckless with his "spunk". This implies that women have no control over their sexuality which is clearly not the case with so many BC options for both sexes. Pregnancy is a failure of both sexes to be "responsible" and both parties are EQUALLY at fault for an unexpected pregnancy, but under the current unfair legal situation only women have the choice on whether or not to be a parent.
The fetus isn't his either. When it is born and becomes a baby, then it is "theirs". Until then, it is in her body and therefore hers.
And he has the right to leave it as "hers", forever. A man does have a right not to pay for an unplanned pregnancy. He can terminate his parental rights & responsibilities before birth. If she chooses to have, and keep, the baby anyway, that's her right too. He can't force her to have an abortion, and she can't force him to pay. They each have their own choices to make.
I really hope you never impregnate a woman, knowingly or not.
But if you do, please be aware that the law doesn't support your misguided sense of entitlement: some paternity laws assign full parental responsibility to fathers even in cases of women lying about contraception, using deceit (such as oral sex followed by self artificial insemination (State of Louisiana v. Frisard) or statutory rape by a woman (Hermesmann v. Seyer)).
I wish more women knew about their rights.
Well, I know men have terminated rights before. But maybe only once :P
Those laws should change. A man should not lose all rights just because a woman wants to keep an unplanned baby.
No, they shouldn't change. It's about the children's well-being, anyway.
If the woman terminates the pregnancy, then there's no issue of how much money is required for the child's well-being. Men should have "choice" in the same way that women have. He can't force her to have it, she can't force him to either.
You'll have the same choice when you start carrying fetuses. In the meantime, STFU and take care of your sperm if you don't want babies.
A nice display of sexism there Mr/Ms "..."
Let's turn your sexism around Mr/Ms "..."...if a woman doesn't want to have a baby, she should never have sex...because if a man gets a woman pregnant, he should have the sole right to decide that he wants to keep that baby. You'll have choice once you can figure-out how to fertilize yourself. In the meantime, STFU and keep your eggs in isolation if you don't want babies.
If men had uteri and women produced sperm, then I'd maintain the same position, lobbying for men's rights to their personhood and for women taking responsibility for the life they helped create.
When you figure out how to disentangle a uterus from a woman (and still make a baby in it), come back. In the meantime, try harder at turning ideas around.
Yes, it wasn't a good turning-around, though your original position is sexist/un-just/ridiculous enough it doesn't need to be turned-around in order to be rebutted. I was just experimenting. And really, my ridiculous turning-around makes as much sense as your original ridiculous idea. I admit though that out-of-date and un-just laws largely support your ridiculous position. Enjoy the benefits of the sexist society we live in. Just don't complain that men are paid more for the same work and other such feminist out-cries.
At what point does the fetus become a baby?
Whenever the mother decides. That may be one minute prior to birth or - soon - up to a year after the baby is born.
The responsibility for preventing the conception rests EQUALLY on both parties. I also think that a man should have the right to have his views on the matter of abortion at least taken into consideration. As a woman I cannot forgive women who do not take the father into consideration at all, but I do feel that the decision should ultimately be hers.
And if men would stop being such babies, maybe we would have a man-pill by now.
Well, they "discussed" it & "agreed on the pill"...so they both took responsibility. In a half-assed, poorly-discussed fashion.
Come on Dan...knowing how most guys are utterly indiscriminate with their spunk and where they dip their wicks in any number of cases, that they, really have to be told...always?
Ladies, I say you decide on a case by case basis. SHould you feel he may be more trouble you need or worse, unrealistic, I say do what you need first and foremost, but don't think you two will have some "Magical Moment" over it either. And, if you have more than one case by case issue with this then girl, you need to get your shit together!
Revolutionary new birth control for men.
Wired article.
https://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/ff_vasectomy/
We both took care, but it was for naught. I was so close to telling him he was going to be a dad, but I didn't go through with it. The "shoulda, woulda, coulda" ruined me, and I didn't want to wish it on anyone else. He's not promiscous either, but the last time I saw him I gave him a speech, to take care of himself and any other who chooses to be with him.
I am a liberal teen currently living in the bible belt. I am in the minority of young people who feel strongly about equality. I am constantly berated by my classmates for supporting equal rights and treatment among all people. It sucks, a lot.
I hate to burst your bubble, but you are displaying classical self-victimizing traits.
As of yet, no one has provided a compelling argument as to why women should have more reproductive rights then men, and yet not have any more responsibility.
The argument for men is if you didn't want a kid, then you shouldn't have had sex. However, as someone earlier wrote, it takes two to tango, and women can have sex without the fear of having children. (On the flip side, men are not able to have the kids that they might ultimately want because of women that have sex only to get an abortion later on).
Now, arguments for choice make a lot of sense, and are probably championed by everyone in this forum. However, when a woman makes a choice, she is the one who should first and foremost have to take responsibility for it.
Women have to carry the damn thing and give birth to it and more often than not are stuck with it later too. Is that what you mean by more reproductive rights?
As for "women can have sex without the fear of having children"- how so, mate? Do you think abortions are fun/easy?
A man has the right to tell her "if you want this unplanned baby, it's all yours". He can terminate his parental rights & responsibilities before birth. If she chooses to have, and keep, the baby anyway, that's her right too. He can't force her to have an abortion, and she can't force him to pay. They each have their own choices to make.
Wishful thinking, J. That's not what the law says.
(But then again, the law also doesn't do a great job at extracting child-support from dead-beat dads very often either, unfortunately for the child.)
Well, I know it's been done before. But maybe only once :P
Re: As for "women can have sex without the fear of having children"- how so, mate? Do you think abortions are fun/easy?
They may not be fun/easy, but women always have the option to get off the hook from an unplanned baby. Men almost never have that choice. Which is unjust.
"Women always have the option to get off the hook"-- riiight. You're just bs-ing now, or you live under a rock. Abortion rights (and adoption rights and parental leave rights) are some of the most contested rights on the planet.
And cry me a river that a woman's right to her own body trumps your right to her body. (You can't force a woman to get an abortion any more than she can force you to get a root canal.)
It's just life that female have uteri and males don't. Luckily, you do have full choice about where your sperm lands, so, you should look more into that instead of whining about the "unjust" laws of nature.
By your logic, no man should ever have sex. Because condoms fail/malfunction. And once they do, woe onto the man for letting his sperm out, and he deserves whatever the woman decides should happen.
It isn't the laws of nature that are unjust. It's the laws of humans that are unjust, that legislate that men get zero choice once a pregnancy occurs.
I don't want a right to her body (when did I ever claim that, other than a joke earlier on?). You're putting words in my mouth just so you can spout more arguments. But I don't think she should have a right to the next 18 yrs of my life, with no say-so on my part. I can't force her to keep/terminate a pregnancy, but she can force me to have an unplanned child. That's un-just.
As for abortion rights...fine, from a U.S.-centric point of view, women have had the option for 38 yrs , and probably aren't losing that option anytime soon. Men rarely have an option (you would say never, but I still recall reading 1 guy who did terminate rights), and probably aren't getting it anytime soon. There's a fairly long-standing inequality here.
By my logic, a man can have all the unprotected PIV sex he can/wants and needs to be responsible for the consequences. Can you comprehend sentences?
Yes, men can have sex, provided they're willing to give up all their rights (even if they get a vasectomy and wear a condom). That's a nice worldview you're espousing.
Bio 101 fail, loser. Vasectomies prevent pregnancies, so nobody will make you pay for child-support if you get one.
Please get one!
Bio 001 fail, loser. Vasectomies aren't fail-proof. I know personally of an unplanned post-vasectomy baby. The vas deferens can re-grow and years later a pregnancy happens. Studies have found failure rates as high as 0.4%, due to tube re-growth (average fail rate of 0.1%). I can't believe you weren't aware vasectomies aren't fool-proof. You shouldn't even be posting here with such poor knowledge.
Well, then they may still make you pay EVEN if you get one. There is no escape, J, just resign yourself to your fate as a male victim of the woman-friendly (har har) legal system.(but do improve your chances by getting a vasectomy anyway. Please, don't reproduce!).
Your pro-sexism arguments are definitely helped by using personal attacks, so you should keep them up, given how weak your position is.
How is it sexist to point out that men don't have uteri?
Given what you've said on this web page, or not objected to, you apparently think it's fine for a man to get a vasectomy, wear a condom, have sex with a woman who lies about having a tubal ligation and being on the pill (to control her period), then she gets pregnant, and he gets no say in whether he has to support a child for 18yrs. And you think that's fine just because women are women. That's sexist. Men & women should have equal rights...and not just when doing so benefits women. Though many women support sexism when it's in their favor. Apparently you do too.
I think it's fine/morally responsible that 2 people who have participated in the making of a child to take care of that child. (Unfortunately the world doesn't seem to agree with this basic concept, seeing how the responsibility for child-rearing still disproportionately falls on women, money- and time-wise).
I am not a fan of what you are proposing because it's, what's that word? ... AWFUL: you are implying that a man who doesn't want to take responsibility for his sperm should be able to either a) FORCE a woman to get an abortion (if she's not on the same page) and/or b) not pay for the child if he can't force the woman to have a procedure done to her body that she may find intrusive/painful/against her own personal moral code.
J: No uterus = No opinion. It's not sexist, it's fair.
And you think it's fine that women have the choice to give-up responsibility, while men never get that choice. Sexist.
>you are implying that a man who doesn't want to take responsibility for his sperm should be able to either a) FORCE a woman to get an abortion (if she's not on the same page) and/or b) not pay for the child if he can't force the woman to have a procedure done to her body that she may find intrusive/painful/against her own personal moral code.
No, I am not implying a man has a right to force a women to stop/keep a pregnancy. I am SAYING though that a women shouldn't have the right to force a man to pay for a child he never wanted. It's then her choice to abort, adopt-away/abandon, or keep. The same choices she's always had, but that men don't have.
>No uterus = No opinion. It's not sexist, it's fair.
That statement defines sexism. Unequal rights/treatment based solely on gender.
Well at least you're unabashedly sexist. That lets people know that your mind is both biased AND completely closed.
Thankfully some women are 100% opposite of you.
Sex is different from gender. A uterus has to do with biological sex, it is not a social construction in any way shape or form.
"And you think it's fine that women have the choice to give-up responsibility, while men never get that choice. Sexist."
It's fine because women have uteri and men don't. Again, not sexist, a fact of life.
(also, your statements makes me think you're the kind of person who'd lobby against abortion rights for women, because it's so "sexist and unjust" that men can't have abortions so women's shouldn't either. Gah!!!)
You believe that women, because they are women, have the right to an abortion, or to adopt-away/abandon...but that men, because they are men, should have no right to avoid raising an unplanned baby. Sexist. And Misandrist.
>It's fine because women have uteri and men don't. Again, not sexist, a fact of life.
No, it's fact of law, because while women are free to give-up responsibility, men are not, and women can decide unilaterally to force men into whatever situation she desires (she can abort a baby he'd like, or make him pay for a baby he doesn't want). Once the baby is out of the uterus, it doesn't matter anymore that it was in one. If she wanted it, and he didn't, she can pay for it. It is only sexist law, not nature, that gives her rights, strips them from men, and forces men to pay.
>also, your statements makes me think you're the kind of person who'd lobby against abortion rights for women, because it's so "sexist and unjust" that men can't have abortions so women's shouldn't either.
That shows poor thinking on your part, as well as ridiculous reasoning. I support a woman's right to choose, and have donated to NOW, Planned Parenthood, etc.
Dead-beat dads is a sexist term, loud and clear.
You sound like you're a pro-lifer and you keep dishonestly equating 'abortion' with 'giving up for adoption' with 'abandoning' with 'giving up responsibility' (which are all very different things). Your first paragraph above = also completely dishonestly painting my position.
Anyway, good for you for donating to NOW and PP (although it's hard for me to believe, with all your "these laws are sexist" bs). If you did that, then you must surely be capable of understanding why NO UTERUS = NO OPINION is a valid moral stance and also you must surely be able to appreciate that we live in a world in which women are not considered to be the only ones responsible for pregnancy.
Anyway, this whole debate reminded me how important it is to educate young women and men in sexual ethics and ethics and contraception methods and biology. (And also, we need to get away from the antiquated notion that children are solely women's problems and proof of only the woman's sexual behavior.)
Have a good day, sir.
>you keep dishonestly equating 'abortion' with 'giving up for adoption' with 'abandoning' with 'giving up responsibility' (which are all very different things).
No. Women have 2 ways to avoid 18yrs of repercussions from a pregnancy (abortion, or adopt-away/abandon). Men have no way to avoid those repercussions (because sexist law strips men of their rights). The laws should be fixed. A man should be able to disclaim the child before birth (although women would still get to choose AFTER birth).
>Your first paragraph above = also completely dishonestly painting my position.
As far as I see, that is your position. Women have rights, men don't get to have them. What do you think of my 1st paragraph here?
>you must surely be capable of understanding why NO UTERUS = NO OPINION is a valid moral stance
There's nothing moral about that. It's pure, unadulterated sexism.
>you must surely be able to appreciate that we live in a world in which women are not considered to be the only ones responsible for pregnancy.
Sexist law forces men to be responsible, while allowing women to choose to be irresponsible.
>this whole debate reminded me how important it is to educate young women and men in sexual ethics and ethics and contraception methods and biology.
It's reminded me to not have sex with sexists. Of which there are a LOT of them (even when some call themselves feminists).
A good day to you too.
(haha, one more.)
So, according to J, nature is sexist, because it gave women uteri, but none to men. I'm afraid sir that to fix That Little Nuisance of a Fact, you'll need to fight more than just 21st century US laws. Best of luck to you!
Immature, incorrect, & ridiculous, but I'd expect no less now that you've realized your sexist position is indefensible. Fixing our sexist laws is all that is required.
Too bad the laws are on my side (for now at least, until crazies like you take over).
And actually, I don't get your "let's fix the laws" point, except to understand that you're sexist and misogynistic. How would you fix the laws?
I disagree that men should have the legal right to disclaim, before birth, the child. Good thing so do the Courts (phew!).
I will, however, keep fighting for new ways to ensure that men can take control of their bodies and manly secretions if they don't desire to have babies. Undesired pregnancies suck for everyone, but especially for the innocent babies brought into the world and used as pawns by power-hungry idiotic adults who just want to get back at each other.
You know, J, you're the first MRA I even debated with online, and by golly, it was as awful as expected.
You're the first sexist I've debated with, and I too think it was awful.
I thought that photo looked familiar...
https://www4.flickr.com/photos/laumichelle/3324898730/in/set-721576146565...
Taken by Lauren Peralta.
Abortion is murder.
Great advice this week to both writers.
So wait, are some of you saying that you believe the father has ZERO say regarding the decision to abort a child that he helped concieve?
Sexism is alive & well. Men have no right to stop/keep an unplanned pregnancy, and no right to pay/not pay for it. Our laws are unjust, but I'm sure the women are thrilled with those laws.
Men's Rights Activist, a.k.a. Massively Wrong A*shole.
The quality of your argument and "thinking" (& spelling..."Wrong" is spelled with a "W", not an "R") is breath-taking.
As well as MRAs obvious disdain and disgust for any man who would dare think of himself as an equal to a woman
If you guys DO care about women's health and choice, please sign this:
https://pol.moveon.org/noaudits/?r_by=27240-18376857-CsZe8Px&rc=confemail
I think the point I would have made, is, forget about the "almost pregnancy" what about AIDS? I'd be taking that as quickly as a pregnancy test. It is incredibly irresponsible to have sex with someone who is cheating on their partner without using a condom. As if she's the only one. Clearly, he can be "trusted" :P
In most states this is all settled law (regardless of you individual opinion). If you are the father you owe child support and the courts will make you pay for 18 years. People go to jail for failure to pay. If you are a male and do not want to pay for a child for 18 years do not come in a women. It really is pretty simple.
The laws are out-of-date and un-just and should be changed.
Heck, even if you are not the father, if the woman says the baby is yours, you are responsible — in some cases even a genetic test showing you are not the biological father will not change this.
Moops, I have read that multiple times, though I'd like more reliable/in-depth resources. Do you have any?
It isn't necessarily that "if the woman says it is yours" but Moops is right that the court can find that you have become an emotional father to the child and could be on the hook for child support. This would only be limited to cases where the step-father (or boyfriend, or whatever) lived with the mother and child for a significant period of time and the child had come to rely on the father for emotional and financial support. Sort of the court's way of being admittedly paternalistic (no pun intended) and telling non-biological fathers that they can't enjoy the benefits of stepping in to be a father without having the responsibility. This is a pretty rare occurrence, but Moops might live somewhere where it happens more frequently.
I just read about a law that says after 2 years from the date you "should have known" (whatever that means), you're on the hook, even if you then learn the kid isn't yours. I guess that argues for DNA testing. :P
@PMO - Yes, it's very important to "not come in a women." Speak English much?
Familiar with the distinction between "speak" and "write" much?
PMO, I call bull.
"If you are a male and do not want to pay for a child for 18 years do not come in a women. It really is pretty simple."
This is the male-targeted version of "Well if you didn't spread your legs, you wouldn't be in this situation now deal with it." Sexism works both ways.
oooh... laws that expect both sexes to act responsibly! oooh, how sexist.
Um, if you pose an argument I'll happily respond.
@Chrissy, sexism does work both ways, but I don't think there's anything sexist about telling a man to be responsible about where his sperm goes. It's the equivalent of telling a woman to be responsible about her eggs. It's not sexist, it's biology. If someone actively does NOT want to be a parent, then they need to do whatever they can to prevent that from happening. If men don't want the responsibility of being a father, they have plenty of choices--get a vasectomy, wear a condom, use the pull-out method, etc. Same thing with women--get on the pill, use an IUD, use a female condom, etc. When those methods fail (rarely), it's the fault of the TWO people who are involved. Responsibility needs to be shared.
Our sexist laws only require the man to be responsible. The woman can choose to abort, or choose to have the child but give up responsibility (legally abandon, or adopt-away). Our sexist laws are what give men no similar option to give up responsibility.
K, I agree completely that responsible sex is key. The idea of "backup birth control" is misleading because it implies that one BC is fine and another is excessive. Both partners should be using their own independent form of BC, each taking responsibility for their own safe sex.
But its really not what we're talking about here. We're talking about when pregnancies do happen. Both parties have equal fault in the pregnancy, but they do not have equal choice to handle it. Women can choose to give up responsibility, but men can not. That's where the sexism lies.
Women have uteri and men don't; women carry the fetus and give birth and men don't (because they cannot). This is why to the dim it appears that women have "more choice" when in fact they have the same amount of choice considering they have different body parts which perform different roles in the reproduction process.
Any law that would not take that into consideration is written by male-identified supremacist idiots.
Maybe stop thinking about a child as some fucking burden or punishment. Rights aside, once that child exists, why wouldn't you want to provide for it? It's half of your fucking DNA.
I agree... when birth control fails, responsibility needs to be 50/50. I just keep thinking that if "J" has a child, he/she is going to grow up knowing that their father actively fought to not provide for him/her in any way. Sad.
Well, K, that implies that a sane and conscious woman may endanger herself and have sex with J at some point, which seems highly unlikely.
Whoops, mis-formatted that link
https://www.salon.com/life/feature/2000/10/19/mens_choice
How is my comment sexist? I'm not saying men should or shouldn't have certain rights, I'm just wondering how one could know he has a child out there and NOT want to do anything. That is the part that baffles me.
You're right, neither you nor K made sexist remarks...AT is just such a raging sexist that when I saw her sneaking back to this page solely to make some personal attacks I had a bit of a knee-jerk reaction.
EM, so, raising a child could not possibly impact anyone's life in such a way as to take it in a direction they didn't want it to go? That's good to know. There should be a lottery, every adult on the planet should be in it, if you're picked, you're randomly given a child that needs a home. It's not a burden or a punishment, it's just a child that needs help, and you've been picked to do it.
If men had post-conception choice as women do, and the guy opted-out, and she elected to have and keep the baby anyway, I assume if the guy wanted to then help, most of the time she'd take what he decided he was able to offer.
What? That's not what I said at all. A random child is not YOUR child. There is a biological and evolutionary need to ensure the care of one's own offspring.
Yes, a child changes someone's life a lot. One minute you might be planning on moving to the fucking Himalayas to research some rare beetle species or something, and then bam, all of a sudden there's this crying helpless thing that belongs to you. But your life is not ruined, it is changed. There IS an emotional attachment between a parent and child that occurs the moment that child is born (sometimes before). I know plenty of people who ended up having children unplanned, and every one of them has said that they could not imagine being a parent after having a child - even if that was disruptive to their life plans.
I'm not saying that you should be forced to take care of a child you don't want - I agree with your argument that a man should be able to terminate all rights and responsibilities if he wants to. I just don't know WHY he would make that choice. It's your child! Maybe the maternal instinct is stronger, but really? You don't want to care for your offspring?
You don't sound pro-equality, J - your argument makes you sound anti-child.
He sounds anti-child, and anti-responsibility. Instead of fighting about what to do after a child is born, why not prevent it from even happening? Getting a vasectomy isn't one hundred percent effective, but according to Planned Parenthood, about 1 out of 1000 cases fail. That's a lot more effective than using a condom, since they can fail up to 15% of the time (because of user error). If one were to have a vasectomy, it would be extremely rare that that they would father a child; if their partner was also on the pill, it would be near impossible (again, because of user error, nothing is 100%).
It's easier to prevent a pregnancy than it is to raise a child. If someone is so adamant about not wanting to have to be responsible for a child, or child support, I'd think they'd do their hardest to prevent a pregnancy in the first place.
After a child exists, I think that responsibility needs to be shared 50/50. I think if the mother doesn't want to raise a child, and the father does, then the mother should have to pay child support. If the mother wants to raise the child, and the father doesn't, he should have to pay child support. It's not sexist. Everyone should be equally responsible in every situation.
Our sexist laws only require the man to be responsible. The woman can choose to abort, or choose to have the child but give up responsibility (legally abandon, or adopt-away). Our sexist laws are what give men no similar option to give up responsibility.
Now, if post-conception and pre-birth, I gave up my rights, then she chose to have the baby anyway, might I then see her pregnancy, or the eventual baby and say "please, I'd like to help, and to see my child"? Absolutely that could happen. Who knows how things would change. It's also possible I'd say "I can help...but to a limited degree, not to the degree a court would demand I should be able to". If I used to be a stockbroker but gave it up to be a painter, the court might demand I match a stockbroker income again. Left to my own choice, I might say "I am a painter, but I'll help the best I can, as a painter". Or maybe I'd choose to re-start a career I grew to hate in order to support the child more. Who knows.
None of that changes that there should be some post-conception equality between men's & women's rights.
You keep avoiding the responsibility aspect that comes pre-conception. If you don't want kids, you have options to keep your life child-free.
I'm curious, J. How many kids are you supporting that you wish you didn't have to support? You definitely have a huge chip on your shoulder.
Those "sexist laws" were enacted for a reason. Kids need to be cared for, if you can't be a dad and rear your child, then at the very least you can help out with money. Same thing goes for men who are single parents; they deserve monetary compensation for having to raise a child on their own.
>You keep avoiding the responsibility aspect that comes pre-conception.
There's just nothing interesting worth arguing about there. Men & women both have lots of choices, and wise, responsible options to consider pre-con. But sexist laws give only women the option to avoid responsibility post-con.
>If you don't want kids, you have options to keep your life child-free.
Oh, yeah, awesome ones. Like an 18 yr old should get himself sterilized, hope it doesn't re-canalize (actually a pretty good bet), hope his frozen sperm stays viable and available for 10-20 yrs, his mate is open to it, and they can afford the extra cost of not doing it the natural way.
>I'm curious, J. How many kids are you supporting that you wish you didn't have to support?
None.
>You definitely have a huge chip on your shoulder.
Sexism & injustice may one day exert control over my life, I dislike that idea.
>Those "sexist laws" were enacted for a reason.
There's a lot of history behind those laws. Hundreds, even thousands of years of history. Women had few rights. Women were at enormous economic disadvantage compared to men. Abortion was illegal or dangerous. Birth control was unreliable. Fewer birth control options existed for either sex. Formal adoption procedures didn't exist. "Legal abandonment" laws didn't exist.
You might be able to make a case that we USED to need those laws. But now that it is no longer 1950, or 1050, the laws have a sexist bent.
18 year olds can wear condoms. Vasectomies can be reversed. Sexism and injustice exerts control over many lives. Wear a condom, and only sleep with people who also don't want children (if both people are actively trying to prevent pregnancy, you'll be able to prevent it). Women are still at an economic disadvantage to men (women only make 77 cents to every dollar that a man makes, in comparable positions). People are fighting to make abortion illegal, it's an expensive procedure that carries a huge amount of stigma, and legal abandonment laws really aren't talked about in sex ed. I doubt your random, scared, 18 year old girl knows where and when you can abandon a baby.
I'm done arguing with you. I hold people responsible for their actions, you obviously do not. I hold them responsible whether or not the end result was intended. If no one forced you to have sex, you should be half responsible for the end result of it.
That being said, I feel sorry for anyone you might accidentally impregnate, and the future children you might have. I pity people who don't feel responsible for the human lives they create, because it's pathetic.
Kids have a hard enough time growing up, but when you force them to grow up knowing their father doesn't even want to pay for the clothes on their back, I can't imagine what that would do for their self esteem. So, kudos to you for wanting laws that say no one has to be responsible for their offspring.
I'm thankful that my male friends and family members both respect women, and take responsibility for their actions.
First of all, he's "avoiding" the pre-conception talk because we all know it and agree with it. "Be responsible!" Be with also-responsible partners. Men where a condom AND women use a form of BC. Pretend that I copied and pasted that line a thousand times because its so important.
BUT you're ignoring the essence of reproductive choice laws. Women have the option to terminate pregnancies whether BC was used or not. Whether the sex was "responsible" or not. Whether.. anything! She always has that option, and again, 100% support behind that.
The system that J and I are talking about -- and forgive and correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth, J -- is a fair contract law between the "parents". This is NOT about some deadbeat dad walking out when his kids are 4. J and I would both agree that that's a dick move. In this case, that's analogous to a woman killing her 4 year old and calling it abortion. Now, resist the urge to scream and reread the word "analogous" again.
If a woman gets pregnant, DECIDES to keep the baby, and DECIDES that she would like the male-parent to be a part of the child's life (financially and otherwise) then she requests that he sign a contract to support and raise to the extent that they agree on. The man has the option of accepting or declining or negotiating to terms that suit him. Ideally -- if the woman is responsible -- this will be done well before the baby is born and she'll have time to re-evaluate her options should the man opt out.
You guys seem to be forgetting that the beauty of the feminism movement is multiple options for women. Stop acting like there are really sneaky ninja men out there just trying to impregnate you so that they can abandon the child. No. Accidental pregnancies happen because BOTH parties dropped the ball. (Hey, be responsible!) You say you hold people up to their responsibilities, but you let women opt out.
Here, I'll even quote you: "you should be half responsible for the end result of it." Exactly, except that you let women opt out of this situation, but you cast type any man who doesn't necessarily want to be a father as an immoral, irresponsible asshole who hates children.
Oh wait.
"After a child exists, I think that responsibility needs to be shared 50/50. I think if the mother doesn't want to raise a child, and the father does, then the mother should have to pay child support." - K
It sounds like K isn't pro-choice at all.
Also, to J.. I can't remember you actually identifying as male. I think everyone else has assumed that you were, and apologies for assuming with them.
anybody else think that the guy should be told about the pregnancy just so that he can do the right thing and take 50% of the cost for the abortion? do folks really think the gal should take the full financial cost on herself?
Split the costs.
Sorry, but when did blow jobs go out of style? If you can't wrap that shit up, it is not going in my vagina.
It would be great if some of the letters could be answered by Tom and Ray at Cartalk. For now listen to callers from The Stranger at savagecartalk.tumblr.com
"please be aware that the law doesn't support your misguided sense of entitlement: some paternity laws assign full parental responsibility to fathers even in cases of women lying about contraception, using deceit (such as oral sex followed by self artificial insemination...or statutory rape by a woman. I wish more women knew about their rights."
This is one of the most unintentionally funny comments I've ever read on this site, so kudos. Oh, yes, if ONLY more women knew that that -- if they molest a 13-year-old boy and conceive in the process -- they have the right to force him to pay for the kid for the next 18 years of his life. Stay classy, AT.
(P.S. For the record: 100% in favor of abortion rights; 100% in favor of unmarried fathers being able to give up parental rights and responsibilities. Forcing men to pay for kids they don't want is how pregnant women end up murdered, folks. Women aren't wombs, and men aren't wallets.)
J, shut up already. Those were examples to show how wrong you were about the law.
But let's just have this for the record: you're saying that if a woman somehow gave birth to your child and took you to court for child support you may in fact try to murder her? Your "father rights" bs is actually for the well-being of the women?? And I'm the one who should stay classy?
Your views on this issue are beyond offensive -- and please stop throwing around the name sexist to anyone who points out facts about basic biology. Start acting like an adult.
The "@AT" above is not me, J., so I won't be responding to most of your post here, I'll leave @AT to tell you what he was thinking.
I do agree with @AT though that your "classy" comment was one of the most unintentionally funny comments I've ever seen.
Your sexism/female supremacy angle is quite offensive.
You also have a warped perspective on what you think "basic biology" is. In fact, basic biology would say that that fetus is inside her, so it's 100% her problem to handle.
As for acting like an adult...you duck out of the conversation with lm, you duck out of the conversation with me. Then you come back to post a purely personal attack against me in a post that contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion, other than your view that I'm a completely unsuitable sex partner. You assume that people who are not me (@AT), are me, and attack me on that basis. And you use "shut up" in a discussion.
You have a warped idea of what an adult is.
I was going to write an extremely long response to all of yous, but this is just too frustrating.
Let's all just agree that from now on we'll talk about this with our partners, and use that information to dictate our sexual behavior. J, don't have sex with a woman who would demand child support from you even if you don't want the kid. AT, don't have sex with a man who would refuse to pay child support. In the meantime, let's all wrap it up, slather it in spermicide, pop a pill, pull out, watch our cycles, insert rings, whatever your preferred choice is, and go spend more time having sex than hanging out on the internet.
"you're saying that if a woman somehow gave birth to your child and took you to court for child support you may in fact try to murder her?"
Either you're in desperate need of some classes in adult literacy and reading comprehension, or this post of yours was made in exceedingly bad faith. Either way, it doesn't merit a response.
From your earlier brain-vomit:
"Forcing men to pay for kids they don't want is how pregnant women end up murdered, folks."
Now you say something