In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Word to the wise: Never date a guy who reads Details

Shorter Details: Tricky bitches will get themselves pregnant and then make you pay for it.

Imagine for a moment this perfectly plausible scenario: You’ve had a steady girlfriend for a year or so and everything’s going great. You still hold hands at the movies. Friends tell you you’re good together. You’re both around 30 years old and making plenty of money, maybe living together, but you’re nowhere near considering fatherhood. And though you occasionally get the feeling that her biological clock is set far ahead of yours, she tells you she’s “safe,” so you don’t worry. Why would you? It’s not as if you’d just picked her up on Dollar Margarita Night at Senor Frog’s. But one morning she tells you something has gone wrong. Unlikely as it sounds, she’s pregnant-and she wants to keep it. What she doesn’t tell you, though, is this: She wasn’t being safe all along. She wanted to have that baby— and the way she saw it, this was the only way to make it happen.

You know where this is going, right?

A few experts discuss the “trend” of women tricking men into impregnating them, without offering any hard information or statistics. A few odd people are interviewed, and they confirm that they’ve heard that other odd people are getting pregant accidently-on-purpose. And then we get to “Roe v. Wade for men”:

Last year, Matt Dubay, a 25-year-old computer programmer in Saginaw, Michigan, says he had the same reaction when his girlfriend, Lauren Wells, allegedly pulled something similar. Dubay claims she told him she was infertile and was using a contraceptive “as an extra layer of assurance and protection.” But when she got pregnant anyway and told Dubay she was keeping the baby, he said he wanted no part of it. Earlier this year, he argued in court that her alleged deception should exempt him from having to pay child support. His lawyer, Jeffrey Cojocar, reasoned that Michigan’s paternity law violated the Constitution’s equal-protection clause: If the situation were reversed and Dubay had gotten Wells pregnant after claiming he was sterile, he’d have no way of forcing her either to keep or to abort the child. The judge didn’t buy his argument, but it’s helped open a broadening national dialogue: Where do you draw the line between deadbeat dad and victim of deceit?

Of course the National Organization for Men, a men’s rights group, is all over it:

“Matt is asking for the reproductive choice he would have had if he were ‘Mattilda,'” the website says. The NCM doesn’t have much contact with men who acquiesce to their role as new fathers. The guys who come to the organization see their situations as deception in its purest form.

“A lot of these men feel like they have no control,” says Mel Feit, the NCM’s executive director. “The courts are ruthless in enforcing getting money and not asking questions. Judges aren’t allowing the fraud argument, either.”

Interestingly, Matt does have the same amount of reproductive control he would have if he were Matthilda — he can do what he wants with his own reproductive capacity. Matt and Matthilda’s reproductive capacities differ — the window for Matt to exercise his reproductive rights may end before Matthilda’s — but both of their reproductive rights begin and end with their own bodies. No one is telling men that they can’t wear condoms or use birth control or get sterilized. In fact, Matt could probably try to have an abortion if he wanted to, but it sounds like he’s a cisgender dude and it’s not going to work out. So it’s unfortunate that he feels he has “no control,” but what he actually wants is the right to control his female partner. Or, at the very least, he wants the right to not have to be responsible for a child he helped to create.

No, it’s not “fair” that some men don’t get to decide whether or not to have a baby when their female partner gets pregnant. It’s also not fair that some women have to push something the size of a football out a hole the size of pencil. Welcome to biology. You don’t see us suing over it.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that some people are jerks. Some people are also manipulative, abusive and selfish. Some of those people are women. I do not doubt that some women, somewhere, have lied about being on birth control in order to get pregnant. But some manipulative jerks does not a trend make. I feel bad for any man who is manipulated or lied to so that his partner can get pregnant against his wishes. That is a really bizarre, selfish and terrible thing. But it doesn’t justify subverting the basic bodily autonomy rights of an entire class of people (or even the basic bodily autonomy rights of the jerk in question). The way around manipulative jerks who would lie about being on birth control is to use birth control yourself. You know that “control” you feel like you’re missing? Here’s how you get it: Wear a condom. Get your tubes tied. Put some pressure on drug companies to come up with male birth control — the reason they aren’t developing or marketing it is because they don’t think there’s a demand.

You know what is an actual established problem, bolstered by research? Men sabotaging their partners’ birth control pills as a form of control and abuse. Just sayin’.

What men like Matt want isn’t reproductive rights; they want reproductive veto rights over someone else’s body. Or they at least want to be able to get out of having to pay for a child once it’s born, because they were tricked into having unprotected sex.

The National Center for Men and all the Matts of the world would probably be better off agitating for male birth control or other forms of actual reproductive rights for men, rather than just targeting women and trying to get out of paying child support. And Details would probably be better off writing about actual problems rather than the misogynist fantasies of men’s rights activists — this article almost tops their “Is It OK to Demand Anal Sex?” feature.

At the very least, Details provides us all with a handy dating tool — if you see a copy in a dude’s apartment, run the other way and run fast.


174 thoughts on Word to the wise: Never date a guy who reads Details

  1. I’m a little at a loss as to how this becomes an example of how men want to control women’s bodies and reproductive choice and not about the responsibility that women have to be honest with their male partners about their desire to have a child instead of lying and manipulating and, “oops, I forgot to take my pill…”

  2. Well, women do have that responsibility, and it’s fine if men want to complain about it. But when men want to legally compel or manipulate women into terminating the pregnancy, that takes it to another level.

  3. tql: Don’t want children? Wear a condom.

    There. Easy answer. Birth control is not solely the woman’s responsibility. If you’re so afraid you’ll get tricked by a lying cheating bitch who wants to trap you, then bag it. Don’t like condoms? Too fucking bad.

  4. When I split recently and I would tell people the reason we broke up was “kids” family knew what that meant instantly, a few friends got it, but 2 friends instantly launched into telling me how good we were and how he’d be a great father and how I should have just “oopsed” him. When I corrected them that it was he who wanted them and not me they both leaned on me to go back to him, to change my mind all of that. So I was very saddened to not only lose the man I loved for 10 years but 2 friends because I have never wanted kids and because I’ve always known.

    I thought it was just something that happened on TV but apparently not.

  5. Let’s not forget the flip-side of this: if men are allowed to compel their partners to get an abortion, they would be able to force their partners to carry a pregnancy to term, as well.

    And Jill, any d00d who reads lad magazines is pretty much a no-go in my book.

    tql, you seem to think that there’s an epidemic of women lying about taking their pills. If you truly believe this, you should forgo dating or marriage. You–and womankind–will sleep much better.

  6. I’m wondering how you prove intent in a case like this. Perhaps he found her diary full of “Mwa ha ha! My secret plan to trap Matt into marriage is totally awesome!” entries?

  7. If you’re so afraid you’ll get tricked by a lying cheating bitch who wants to trap you, then bag it. Don’t like condoms? Too fucking bad.

    And really, if you’re dating someone you don’t trust or believe, maybe it’s time to rethink your life choices.

    I just flat out do. not. believe that there are enough women out there to make a “trend” who unilaterally decide to have a baby without confirming they have the help and support of their long time partner.

    Having a baby has, I’m told, many things to recommend it, but it also has many things that are difficult and that suck in the best of circumstances, and the circumstances aren’t that great if someone you love, who you thought trusted you is accusing you of crazy behavior and telling the world you’re a manipulative liar.

    Occam’s razor: it’s not for shaving.

  8. I don’t understand why Matt didn’t terminate his parental rights if he didn’t want to pay child support.

    And that article is so stupid—why do they interview a girl who is all, “the sonogram will melt his heart” and then goes on to say he left her because of it and she had an abortion?? Like, whoa. Obviously, not that big of a trend there man.

    Also, I find it ironic that guys feel like they don’t have any “control”–regardless of what birth control method you are using, there’s *always* a risk.
    The only 100% perfect method is abstainence, but somehow I don’t think they’d be into that. LOL

  9. Guys: if you are caught with a Details in your hovel, try using a variation of the following defense…

    Lovejoy: Your son has been working in a burlesque house.

    Helen: Principal Skinner saw him with his own eyes.

    Skinner: [appearing from behind Rev. Lovejoy] That’s true, but I was only in there to get directions on how to get away from there.

  10. “I thought it was just something that happened on TV but apparently not.”

    People who think that a woman who really, really doesn’t want kids will magically turn into supermom and never look back if only she can be forced into having a baby have a tendency to think the same thing about men and becoming a father. They just tend to keep a little bit quieter about it in public because it’s still socially totes okay to act like what women want doesn’t matter, but you have to pay lip service to the idea that young men are complete masters of their own destiny (see also, all-volunteer army).

    In private, they’re free to advise oopsing a dude into dadhood, because there’s no man that doesn’t secretly want to be a patriarch and won’t melt into it at the sight of his newborn heir, doncha know.

    1. I would also add that if your girlfriend would decide to carry to term in the event that she accidentally became pregnant, really guys: you don’t have to fuck her.

      Seriously, this is a very good conversation to have, in all circumstances that involve a serious sexual relationship that includes any sort of risk of pregnancy! That way, if one of you thinks that abortion is murder and the other thinks that they don’t want kids and therefore finds abortion to be the ideal solution in such a situation, you can stop having that sexual contact! And if one of you would be okay with an accidental pregnancy, and the other would totally not, that’s also good to know! For both of you! Of course, the woman has every right to change her mind in the event that she actually does become pregnant, and that certainly does happen, and one will do something totally different from what they’d previously thought they would have done. But it at least gives you a good idea, and significantly narrows the possibility of “wow, I never thought he/she would react like that!” Which is undoubtedly an incredibly good thing.

      And seriously … if you can’t bring yourself to talk about the risk of unintended pregnancy, you probably shouldn’t be engaging in acts that could potentially result in one.

  11. You’re both around 30 years old and making plenty of money, maybe living together, but you’re nowhere near considering fatherhood.

    I feel rather strongly that if you’re living together, you should be able to have a discussion about what you’ll do in the event of an unplanned pregnancy.

    I don’t understand why Matt didn’t terminate his parental rights if he didn’t want to pay child support.

    Because that’s not what terminating parental rights means. Termination of parental rights is something done by a court after you’ve demonstrated in some way (having a substance abuse problem, being abusive, being poor, being the wrong color, some combination of these) that you’re unfit for further parenting.

    There is no legal mechanism for announcing you’re not going to pay child support or have anything to do with your child.

  12. The other aspect of this article that I didn’t get to when writing the post at midnight last night is the classism. There’s the “It’s not like you picked her up at Senor Frog’s” reference in the opening, and there’s another line by an “expert” later in the piece that says something like, “This used to be a Jerry Springer phenomenon, but now you even see professional women doing it.” i.e., tricking someone into fatherhood is no longer just a “white trash” endeavor. Ugh.

  13. In my extended family, there are two bona fide examples of women ‘tricking’ men into fatherhood. But both women were obviously complete and utter whack-jobs, and their ‘victims’ should have known better. (Never, ever get involved with a gambling addict. Never.)

  14. Yeeeeah, I had this argument with a guy back when I was in highschool. He was all, “But my friend doesn’t want the baby!”

    I was like, “Did your friend wrap it up beforehand?”

    “No.”

    “Then I guess he made his choice, didn’t he?”

    On the one hand, I genuinely am sorry for men because once that egg is fertilized, it’s no longer any of their damn business. That must suck. But on the other hand, in all of these stories about “bitches” “tricking” men into having children, the men in question always seem to be leaving BC up to the ladiez. It’s never, “Dude, she poked a hole in every condom in the box!” It’s always, “she didn’t take her pill/sabotaged her diaphragm/outright lied about having a prescription at all.”

    Okay, so let me get this straight: you’re abdicating the control you DO have and then whining about the control you CAN’T have? How is that mature or logical? Biology isn’t fair–seriously, I have to bleed from my vadge once a month, HOW IS THAT FAIR?–but that doesn’t mean you get to be a 5-year-old about it. Take responsibility for your own dick already.

  15. People tell me all the time that if I just have a baby, I’ll love it. And be supermommy or something. No, I’ll still be me. Only I’d be me all over some poor innocent victim who doesn’t deserve that at all. I’m a good person- and completely lacking in the traits that make good mothers.

    Raise your hand if you think the above description may well apply to your mother.

  16. I’ve never actually had sex with anybody without bringing up the “If I were to get pregnant right now, I would probably X,” issue first.

    I’m not totally crazy about the “Well, if you don’t want to have kids, don’t ever have sex,” argument for men, because that’s kind of what the fundies always say when they’re slut shaming and stumping against abortion. Why, if wimminz didn’t want teh baybeez, they should have kept their legs shut!, that sort of thing.

    I also don’t care for the implication on the part of the MRAs that if birth control fails, it’s because Those Bitches Are Scheming To Trap You. I mean, are whiny MRAs and readers of Details really primo men that we all want to be legally and biologically bound to for the rest of our lives? I’m thinking not.

    What I AM a fan of is recognizing the current social and biological contract. It’s not like these guys can legitimately say “Well, I *thought* I could force her to have an abortion or just legally abandon the child if she had one! Wait, I can’t? Why wasn’t I told??”

    Well, this is for the MRAs who are going to glom onto this thread:
    Men and women can both use birth control.
    Men and women can both decide to pursue custody of a child once it’s born (ie, if she wants to place a child for adoption and you want to raise it, you can assert your parental rights and keep that child).
    Only women can make decisions regarding abortion.
    Them’s the brakes.

  17. First off, I am a woman.

    Now that we have cleared that up…

    If a man is in a relationship and his girlfriend tells him the she’s on the pill or infertile, WHY WOULDN’T HE BELIEVE HER. You know, with relationships being based on trust and such. And, clearly having an “oops” isn’t that farfetched since a previous commenters friends suggested that she do just that to “convince” him that he really does want kids.

    I understand that it is a slippery slope and I am not advocating that men be able to compel their partner ror ex to have an abortion b/c. But, I am saying that women should be far beyond trapping a man into having a kid by feigning an mix-up with their birth control – or worse – lying about their fertility. I’m glad that you all live in a world where women would NEVER do that. I live in the real world and don’t put people using whatever they advantage they have, no matter how ethically problematic it is, to get what they want….

    1. tql, I think that everyone is in agreement here that telling your sexual partner that you’re using birth control when you’re not is wrong. Can you please point me to the person who said otherwise?

      The argument that is being made is a) there is no trend of this happening, b) birth control fails. It’s always a good thing to have a backup method! Especially since, you know, people forget to take pills. Or they take a drug that interacts with the birth control pill and don’t realize it. Or, in less frequent cases, the pill just plain doesn’t fucking work. You cannot shove the pill down a woman’s throat every morning. That’s what a vast majority of the commenters here, when talking about a dude complaining that the woman got pregnant, are talking about — genuine birth control failures. Not about evil wimminz tricking poor innocent dudes with their conniving, lying ways.

      Which means that there is nothing wrong with believing your partner — and lying to your partner about such a serious matter is absolutely wrong — but you should also be wise enough to realize that humans are fallible, and if you’re really concerned enough about it, you should be doing what you can do to also prevent pregnancy.

  18. tql,

    The plural of anecdote is not data.

    Also, your first paragraph that says “Why shouldn’t men believe women?” doesn’t really jive with your second paragraph that says “Women shouldn’t be such liars, BUT THEY ARE.” (paraphrase, obviously).

    Talulah, God, totally. I mean, nothing is foolproof, but people *should* do what they *can*.

  19. tql, I guess I’m just not seeing what your point is. Ok, we all agree that it’s crappy if a woman gets pregnant on purpose without her partner’s consent. I think we can all agree that it has probably happened. What we’re saying is that there’s no actual “trend” of this happening, beyond a few stories told to Details magazine. Yes, there are a lot of jerks out there who do bad and manipulative things. Sometimes women do those things too. But… ok? So what’s your point?

  20. But, I am saying that women should be far beyond trapping a man into having a kid by feigning an mix-up with their birth control – or worse – lying about their fertility.

    Where’s the evidence that there is a mass epidemic of women who are doing just that? I agree that ALL people should be far beyond trapping and tricking their partners into doing something they don’t want to do, and I agree that there are probably wackos out there who are doing this, and that’s really,really shitty. But I don’t buy the argument that there are masses of women who are tricking their partners into fatherhood, certainly not to the degree that it would warrant a “trend.”

  21. My partner of four years has a son who is six. When his son was conceived it was with a woman who he had been dating for 3 months who had told him she was unable to have children due to a genetic condition so they didn’t have to use birth control. This was a lie. They were both 19. Now, my partner fully admits that he was stupid enough to believe her. He takes full responsibility for his actions, for not wearing a condom. My partner was also one of the good guys who decided to stick around even though she was an abusive and destructive person (until she left after cheating on him) because he wanted to be a part of his son’s life.

    This post struck a chord with me. It was really easy for me in the beginning of our relationship to get pissed at her for lying, being manipulative and abusive. I also fell into the trap of seeing my partner as having been “tricked.” But I realized that it was unfeminist of me to place the blame solely on her. He was responsible too. But it doesn’t excuse her abusive behavior.

    We now have joint custody of his son and have to deal with this abusive, destructive person everyday. I love my stepson dearly but I hate that his mom is a part of our lives. There is not a week that goes by that I don’t think about the poor choices that were made, about the deception that took place.

    There are women who are abusive, destructive assholes. There are also men who own up to their mistakes and take responsibility.

    The men in the Details article need to own up to their mistakes and take responsibility for their part in creating a life.

  22. Jill, I am not really following your logic with this article. While I am not an MRA by any stretch of the imagination, I can see the point they are trying to bring up.

    First off the whole idea that this is a “trend” is debatable and rather irrelevant in my eyes. Statistician’s have been wrong before, they will be wrong again.

    As we all know there are multiple stages in pregnancy: Sex, conception, pregnancy and finally birth. Women have far more options in every single category. They have birth control for sex, morning after pills to stop conception, abortion during pregnancy and if she decides for adoption, she can give the baby up. Women therefore have tons of options while men have no options after having sex.

    I also fail to see your “trying to control women’s bodies” argument. If this was allowed, men could opt-out of parenting (just like women can). It is not a “You will have an abortion if you want it or not” idea. Women can still make that decision regardless of what the man decides. If the man does opt-out, the woman can then make her decision to have or not have the baby.

    I am all for equality, so if women have the option(s) to opt-out of parenting after conception, men should be granted that same option as well.

  23. “I’m not totally crazy about the “Well, if you don’t want to have kids, don’t ever have sex,” argument for men”

    Well, it’s usually a strawman or a reservation for guys who are completely into hyperventilation territory about the possibility that they could father a child against their will. The only way to be completely, totally sure that you’re not going to knock a woman up is, yes, to refrain from potentially procreative sex with fertile women. There is never a 0% chance of conception in the above scenario.

    But seriously, the first line of defense against disease and pregnancy for heterosexual couples is condoms. And taking the time and making the effort to just use a condom correctly, every time, reduces the risk of unwanted fatherhood by around 97% right out of the goddamn gate.

  24. Preying Mantis, I totally agree with you regarding birth control, failure rates, and abstinence.

    I’m just saying that every time people say men shouldn’t have sex if they don’t want to have children, it reminds me of the assholes in the abortion debate who get all up in a lather and say “My God, if that 15 year old didn’t want to have a baby right then and there, she should have kept her legs shut!”

    But again, see above about the social contract. Men KNOW that they can’t force a woman to have an abortion. To behave as if they are ignorant of this fact after they impregnate a partner, either deliberately or accidentally, is douchebaggery of the highest order.

  25. I tend to get twitchy about the “well, just don’t have sex” line. But I will say that if you’re living together, you really do need to have the “what would we do if the BC failed” talk. You really should be on the same page about having or not having kids.

    For Hades’ sake. I’ve talked about this sort of thing with the men I’ve been involved with, and it’s not like we were living together. But it’s something that needs to be on the table (granted, I had the opposite problem–I don’t want to be pregnant, EVER.) Don’t be some cooler-than-though dipshit. Be grownups and talk about this stuff.

  26. This whole choice for men crap surfaces every few years, peddled by the men’s rights activists and the pick up crowd, amongh others. Quoting an old blog post of mine:

    As I’ve written before, men do have reproductive choice. We have the choice as to whether or not to have sex, and whether or not to use a reliable form of protection when having sex. Though some MRAs seem to believe that lustful women patrol the land at night like medieval succubae, eager to rob men of their semen, rational folks are aware that very, very few women, if any, are “stealing” the ejaculate of naive and innocent men. If we aren’t ready for fatherhood, or aren’t willing to countenance our partner’s decision to terminate a pregnancy, the time to act is before we have sex. I’ll say it again and again and again: when a man ejaculates inside of a woman, he is taking responsibility for all of the consequences that may arise: abortion, fatherhood, eighteen years of child support. If he doesn’t like the consequences, he is free to refuse vaginal intercourse with his wife or partner.

  27. Hugo-he’s also free to wear a condom or pull out. Seriously-the last one in particular can’t be sabatoged. Dude has options. just because they don’t include forced abortion or abandoning a child doesn’t make them not exist.

  28. Another thing MRA’s should advocate for: Most doctors will not give vasectomies to men under thirty. I find this particularly outrageous, since they’re happy to give fertility treatments to people under thirty. Apparently, there’s only a danger you’ll change your mind on the having children issue if you’re in the “against” camp. Obviously not a solution to those who want to have kids some day, but it would come in handy for those who don’t.

  29. “Well, this is for the MRAs who are going to glom onto this thread:
    Men and women can both use birth control.
    Men and women can both decide to pursue custody of a child once it’s born (ie, if she wants to place a child for adoption and you want to raise it, you can assert your parental rights and keep that child).
    Only women can make decisions regarding abortion.
    Them’s the brakes.”

    See, this is interesting to me, legally, the woman is the one who has the final call of whether or not to put up the child for adoption? And if she does, the man can pursue custody of it? But a man cannot decide that it’s in the child’s best interests to be put up for adoption? I TOTALLY make the argument that while it is still in her body, it’s her choice, but after she gives birth, shouldn’t there be a bit more symmetry? Anyway, that particular element just seems slightly weird to me. If the woman puts the child up for adoption, but the man contests custody and gets it, does she pay child support? That would make slightly more sense. I’m just really unclear of the legality in these situations.

  30. I don’t understand why Matt didn’t terminate his parental rights if he didn’t want to pay child support.

    You can’t terminate your own parental rights without the other parent’s consent.

  31. jemand, adoption laws vary from state to state, region to region, but as a general rule, neither parent can make the sole decision to place a child for adoption. Neither parent can surrender/terminate parental rights (and thus parental responsibilities) without the consent of the other parent.

  32. If the woman puts the child up for adoption, but the man contests custody and gets it, does she pay child support?

    Probably. I know for a fact that if a woman abandons her kids and the father is raising them, he can absolutely get her to pay child support. (And then she can move to California, making it somehow impossible for Maryland to figure out how to get support from her because she was in Virginia and they apparently don’t update records or something. Why, no, I’m not angry.)

  33. I have heard stories of women who have been told by doctors that they are infertile, so they forego any birth control methods because they believe their doctors, not out of malicious intent. These women are just as surprised as their partners when they end up pregnant, so it’s like Cara mentioned before — humans make mistakes, and these unexpected situations are bound to happen. Taking a little extra precaution doesn’t hurt.

    BUT if you know your partner is fertile, you know two forms of protection is better than one, and you know that you absolutely don’t want a child anytime soon, then take responsiblity for yourself. I enjoyed reading this blog post because it said this so well — unless, like Taluleh said, your partner is poking holes in your condoms, men have every opportunity to look out for their own interests and wear a condom for prevention.

    One important thing to note is that a condom, unlike a birth control pill, works to prevent pregnancy AND the transmission of sexually-transmitted infections. So if you barely know a woman, she tells you she’s infertile, and you take her at her word, you should still be wrapping it up as a precautionary measure.

  34. “See, this is interesting to me, legally, the woman is the one who has the final call of whether or not to put up the child for adoption?”

    No, of course not.

    If neither parties consent to adoption, they raise the child.
    If both parties consent to adoption, the child is placed.

    If either party wants to place the child for adoption and the other one doesn’t, well, too damned bad for the one who wants to place. The child won’t be placed. Nobody walks away. One party is going to raise the child, and the other party is going to pay child support.

    What I’m saying is that if a woman wants to place a child for adoption, it is certainly within a man’s legal right to say “Hey, wait, I want to raise my child,” and then fucking DO SO, and the woman can pay child support.

    I know one guy who did this. He was 15.

  35. jemand, the only way anyone can take a baby away from its mother and put it up for adoption is by showing that the mother’s parental rights are bad for the baby. The mother must be proved an unfit parent.

    You don’t have to be the baby’s father to make this petition: anyone can do it. If you know of an unfit parent, then you can protest to the family services agency in your area and suggest that it act to terminate the parent’s parental rights.

    But if the mother is not an unfit parent, she can keep her baby, even if the father wants to separate her from this child.

    And yes, if the mother offers the baby for adoption and the father steps up to seek custody, and he receives custody, then the mother can be compelled to pay child support.

    It’s all pretty basic and fair IMO.

  36. “See, this is interesting to me, legally, the woman is the one who has the final call of whether or not to put up the child for adoption? And if she does, the man can pursue custody of it?”

    A mother generally cannot put a child up for adoption without consent from the father or a good faith attempt to find the father. It’s not a case of the father being able to challenge an adoption proceeding so much as being able to preempt it entirely with either a refusal of consent or a custody suit. And yes, if he was awarded custody, she would be as liable for child support as a man would be, were the genders in the situation swapped.

  37. It’s all pretty basic and fair IMO.

    This is what always gets me about these conversations. After the child is born, the situation is perfectly fair and equal. Before…well, we’re basically talking about rectifying the injustice to men caused by the fact that women do all the work of gestation and childbirth.

  38. I think the point about reproductive equality made here is very important. Men DO have the opportunities to wear condoms, get snipped, whatevs.

    What I can’t believe is that Details seems to have ignored the very basic concept that no contraception is 100 percent infallible. I’ve had an Oops myself, which is why I insisted on double BC (condoms and pill) for the first year of my last relationship. Why assume that the woman is out to trick the man, when it’s well known (or should be) that for the Pill to work, you have to take it at the same time every day, not use certain antacids or certain other medications too close to the time you ingest it, and so on. If you miss a day, due to whatever reasons, the effectiveness of the Pill goes down. If you take it in the morning one day, and at lunch the next, and at dinner the next….well, the effectiveness is diminished. If you took your pill at dinner, and forgot and had an antacid like Zantac, you could have diminished the effectiveness of the Pill.

    Anyway, the point is that The Pill, the most effective form of BC, can be accidentally diminished via any number of things, and probably without malice aforethought on the part of the woman. But the willingness to ascribe Eeebil Gold-diggy Motives indicates that there are other issues on the guy’s part. Not that we had any doubt, because he was clearly conversant with the MRA culture.

    Sort of in answer to Jemand: One of those little things the Anti-choicers don’t tell you about adoption is that you are likely to experience as much trauma over giving up the baby as you would have if you’d had the abortion. If not more trauma. Basically you are asking somebody to choose between having SOME control over her body but forcing her to give up the product of nine months labour OR NO control at all. There’s no symmetry there–just the man controlling the product of the woman’s body. If the man doesn’t want to have anything to do with the product post-birth, why should he decide what happens to it pre-birth? Sure, single-parenthood is hard, but it is do-able, depending on the resources one has, and stigmatizing the woman based on her choice, is what’s going on there. (If I were her, I’d let him waive his parental rights, because there’s no telling what kind of dickish control issues he’d try to play out later. I have a friend whose child’s father tried to keep her from going on an exchange program for school, despite the fact that her parents were going to be watching the child, and he himself skipped out on half the weekends he was supposed to have visitation. I have another friend who can’t move out of her home state, even though she would make more money elsewhere, because the bio-dad of her kids, who once again, doesn’t care squat about the kids, uses the custody agreement to make her life miserable.)

    I tend towards the opinion that both couples should have the “what if the BC fails” talk….after my own Oops, I made sure all subsequent BFs knew my fertility history and that the issue had been covered.

  39. “what we’re saying is that there’s no actual “trend” of this happening, beyond a few stories told to Details magazine.”

    I don’t know if it’s fair to say that it’s a “trend”. But I do know that women do – quite often – intentionally manipulate men into getting them pregnant by lying about being on birth control.

    That being said: Obviously, men still have a responsibility to wear condoms if they are not looking to have a child. They also obviously have no right to have any say in whether or not a woman has an abortion. It is also my belief that the biggest problem men have with claiming paternity is simply that they don’t want to pay child support. Men should not have the right to opt out of paying child support because the child support is for the -child-, not for the mother. It is in the best interest of the -child- to have the father’s economic support. Once the -child- is born, what the parents want is largely irrelevant.

  40. If the woman puts the child up for adoption, but the man contests custody and gets it, does she pay child support?
    generally, yeah.
    The one who isn’t physically present pays support. Hmmm. . . I wonder why it’s these MRA who whine about men always paying.

  41. I once woke up to my girlfriend having unprotected sex with me… it was a little weird… I was gung-ho and all for it once my head cleared up, but really, it was pretty risky, and I might not have made the same choices if I’d been, you know, awake…

    Absolutism about the ‘my body – my choice’ principle is as naive and adolescent as absolutism about any other principle. While the criticism of this article has centered around the desire of MRAs to control womens’ bodies, and about how there isn’t any indication of any kind of “trend” on this subject, I’m not seeing any admission that there should be a right to compel the woman to get an abortion if she did in fact lie about being on birth control. (the whole “I have a genetic disorder/physical disability and can’t get pregnant” thing is a little trickier, because these things are usually questions of percentages, and the law of averages blah blah blah)

    You can never terminate parental rights in any real way. You’ve still got a kid out there, whether or not a court can compel you to pay for him/her. That’s a non-economic fact. Another fact is that there aren’t as many reproductive choice options for men as there are for women, and the ones available for men are much worse than the ones available for women. You’re trying to set a norm here that the transfer of reproductive decisionmaking is absolute and occurs at voluntarily condomless insertion, but there’s an equally valid norm that would give both parties a role in continuing decisionmaking; why should men have to make their decisions before the fun part, and women get to make all the decisions after the fun part?

    The immediate answer is “because after the fun part, everything is happening IN HER BODY.” But it doesn’t stay in her body. Telling men they had the choice whether or not to have sex is basically the same as abstinence-only education plus condoms. Maybe the conversation shouldn’t be about abortion, but about whether someone should be required to take RU-486. People are required by law to take medication all the time: consider vaccine requirements in schools, or consider the laws the government can put into effect to control disease outbreaks. Maybe, if a man can show that a woman assured him that she couldn’t get pregnant, it’s up to her to live up to that promise.

    Finally, on the subject of “the woman does all the work of bearing the child, so she should get all the rights to make post-coital decisions,” This seems like another attempt to establish a specific norm: that it’s tough luck for the men, because the baby’s in the woman. But maybe it should be tough luck for the woman, because the baby’s inside her, but the man still has a decisionmaking role. They’re equally valid, and that’s why absolutism on this subject is silly. Two peoples’ voices should be taken into account in making these decisions, because every child is going to have two parents, even if one isn’t equally involved in gestation. The remedy for the inequalities between men and women in the pregnancy process is that women have many more birth control options, and are generally favored for parental rights after birth.

    1. Maybe the conversation shouldn’t be about abortion, but about whether someone should be required to take RU-486.

      And maybe you should read some more. Any termination of pregnancy is an abortion. There are medical abortions and there are surgical abortions.
      (ETA: and also spontaneous abortions, aka miscarriages)

  42. The only times I have ever had unprotected PIV with my spouse were when pregnancy was our goal. All other times until my recent vasectomy, we either had other kinds of sex or used a barrier.

    I am so unsympathetic to whiny guys on this one. The problem is completely, entirely, 100% in their control. They can abstain from sex with that partner altogether, have other kinds of sex, or use a barrier. Sure, lying to one’s partner is wrong, but I have seen nothing but scattered anecdotes to suggest this is any kind of common issue.

  43. yah, but I thought one of the things people said when this was becoming a controversy in the U.S. is that RU-486 is very different from an abortion… that there’s a spectrum, and birth control’s on it, and RU-486 is on it, and surgical abortion’s on it, and RU-486 lies somewhere on this spectrum, but it isn’t the same… but I could be mistaken. Either way, it’s less invasive than surgical abortion, and the health risks are extremely remote– as they are with surgical abortion, and as they are with other court- and government- ordered procedures.

    1. @The Flash,

      I think you are having some confusion between “the morning-after” pill (emergency contraception) and RU486/mifepristone, which is more commonly called “the abortion pill”.

      Emergency contraception has to be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex/contraceptive failure (i.e. before one knows whether one is pregnant or not), and commonly results in a forced menstruation episode.

      Mifepristone tends to be taken more like 3 weeks after conception (which may have occurred despite “protected sex”) , is only taken when one definitely knows one is pregnant, and forces a miscarriage of the conceptus. Mifepristone is only effective up to 6 weeks after conception, which is probably why some people may have claimed it was very different from surgical abortion, which can take place much later in gestation.

  44. Guys: if you are caught with a Details in your hovel, try using a variation of the following defense…

    Lovejoy: Your son has been working in a burlesque house.

    Helen: Principal Skinner saw him with his own eyes.

    Skinner: [appearing from behind Rev. Lovejoy] That’s true, but I was only in there to get directions on how to get away from there.

    Or, “But I got this when Conde Nast Portfolio went under!”

  45. The argument about contraceptives is a red herring. The article was not about genuine birth control failures, but about men who were tricked into fathering children and whether those men should be forced to financially support the children that were fathered through deception. Women in those men’s position, i.e. women who do not want the responsibility of caring for a child, are allowed to severe their parental rights regardless of the reason and often without ever notifying the father that his child is in foster care or being placed for adoption. The issue here is whether men in the same position should be allowed to severe their parental rights as well.

    Reasonably speaking, the answer is yes. If someone has been deceived into spawning offspring, then the person should be allowed to end their parental rights. There should also be rules about getting this undone (such rules exist in theory for adoption, but for the most part if a mother changes her mind even years down the line chances are the court will either award her custody or at least access to the child).

    1. @ Toysoldier

      The article was not about genuine birth control failures, but about men who were tricked into fathering children and whether those men should be forced to financially support the children that were fathered through deception.

      The critique is that there seems to be many assumptions about deception without any acknowledgement of the known rates of contraceptive failure. Can any of these men prove that they were deceived?

      Women in those men’s position, i.e. women who do not want the responsibility of caring for a child, are allowed to severe[sic] their parental rights regardless of the reason and often without ever notifying the father that his child is in foster care or being placed for adoption.

      Where are women allowed to do this? What jurisdiction? Cite, please.

      If someone has been deceived into spawning offspring, then the person should be allowed to end their parental rights.

      Good luck convincing the State that they should have to support existing children just because one of the biological parents doesn’t want to pay even though they could pay. The State does not terminate parental rights frivolously, because then the State has to pick up the tab.

  46. “Quite often,” Faith from FN? Really? Do you have the slightest support for that beyond anecdata?

  47. Great post — well-stated and argued.

    I agree that any man who is “tricked” into fatherhood is paying for the mistake of choosing a dishonest, manipulative, ethically challenged partner. It’s unfair, but no more unfair than being “tricked'” into having sex by a partner who pretends to have serious feelings when it’s really just a one-night thing.

    I am also very skeptical of the idea that this kind of deception is a widespread “trend.” I do think, though, that if/when it does occur, one part of the problem is a culture that assumes that everybody SHOULD want to have children, or SECRETLY wants to (whether they know it or not), and that unplanned pregnancies are gifts from God to show us what’s really important. I do think there are people who feel this way. It is a VERY SMART idea to know if you are having sex with one of them!!!

    And Talulah, comment number 18, I just want to say: your comment is my favorite! Love it.

  48. Great post — well-stated and argued.

    I agree that any man who is “tricked” into fatherhood is paying for the mistake of choosing a dishonest, manipulative, ethically challenged partner. It’s unfair, but no more unfair than being “tricked'” into having sex by a partner who pretends to have serious feelings when it’s really just a one-night thing.

    I am also very skeptical of the idea that this kind of deception is a widespread “trend.” I do think, though, that if/when it does occur, one part of the problem is a culture that assumes that everybody SHOULD want to have children, or SECRETLY wants to (whether they know it or not), and that unplanned pregnancies are gifts from God to show us what’s really important. I do think there are people who feel this way. It is a VERY SMART idea to know if you are having sex with one of them!!!

    And Talulah, comment number 18, I just want to say: your comment is my favorite! Love it.

  49. But I do know that women do – quite often – intentionally manipulate men into getting them pregnant by lying about being on birth control.

    If this happens quite often, then you should have no problem offering a cite to a peer-reviewed, published study that says so, right? And just for shits and grins, what percentage of sexually active women constitutes “often”, for you? I’d love to see the study that gives the percentage of women who have deceived men into getting them pregnant.

    Women can’t “manipulate men into getting them pregnant” if those men are either wearing condoms or have had a vasectomy. For crying out loud—“but she told me she was on the pill” sounds a lot more ludicrous coming from an adult man than “but…I thought you couldn’t get pregnant the first time” does coming from a teenager. Sex education—not just for teenagers.

  50. thanks everyone for setting me straight on the legality. I was slightly confused as to that particular aspect of custody law, it makes much more sense now. The whole business of reproduction in general “isn’t fair” I guess, not least because it results in an additional someone who didn’t ask to come around onto the planet and you can’t be entirely “fair” to the original two without considering that the child has needs that must be met as it grows too. And it’s not fair to throw it all on society if someone doesn’t want to be responsible either, but….

    Biggest thing, make discrimination in sterilization on the basis of age illegal, for adults. That really, really should help a lot. Because it is quite true that it’s sometimes hard to find a doctor, one who really does do lots of sterilizations, yet who completely refuses to do it for no other reason than the age of the patient. Why is that ok? We have laws banning other kinds of medical discrimination.

  51. “If this happens quite often, then you should have no problem offering a cite to a peer-reviewed, published study that says so, right? And just for shits and grins, what percentage of sexually active women constitutes “often”, for you? I’d love to see the study that gives the percentage of women who have deceived men into getting them pregnant.”

    Nope. Sure can’t. Can’t imagine that there could be any study to show such a thing. I am speaking from personal experience. It does happen. That’s all I’m going to say about the matter.

    “Women can’t “manipulate men into getting them pregnant” if those men are either wearing condoms or have had a vasectomy.”

    Obviously. I never said otherwise, did I?

    1. [women deliberately and deceptively sabotaging contraception]

      I am speaking from personal experience. It does happen. That’s all I’m going to say about the matter.

      So you have no support for “quite often” other than having been told that it happened to people you actually know, or a friend of a friend of a friend?

      I’m sure that it does happen sometimes. But sometimes is not the same as “quite often”. I’m also [sarcasm] sure [/sarcasm] that angry men couldn’t [sarcasm] possibly [/sarcasm] vindictively want to make their “crazy bitch of an ex” who “got pregnant” (all by herself!) look even worse to everybody by saying that she lied to him to make it happen.

  52. The critique is that there seems to be many assumptions about deception without any acknowledgement of the known rates of contraceptive failure. Can any of these men prove that they were deceived?

    Well, no, which is pretty convenient for the alleged liar.

    I agree that any man who is “tricked” into fatherhood is paying for the mistake of choosing a dishonest, manipulative, ethically challenged partner. It’s unfair, but no more unfair than being “tricked’” into having sex by a partner who pretends to have serious feelings when it’s really just a one-night thing.

    Yeah, for sure. Just the same as how we can tell a victim of domestic assault that she deserves the abuse, since she chose a violent ass hole as her partner. That’s a totally awesome comparison.

    Now anyway, obviously there’s no kind of legislation that can realistically be passed to protect male victims of this kind of fraud. There isn’t a way to do so (at least, not that I can think of) that would be free from sexism and stripping a woman of reproductive rights and/or financial support from a person with whom she created a child. On the other hand, it’s ridiculous to assert that it doesn’t actually happen often enough to care about just because no one has bothered to put together an academic or reputable study about it. How would one do that without being accused of being a misogynist for even considering the fact that maybe enough women do this to pay attention to it?

  53. “I’m also [sarcasm] sure [/sarcasm] that angry men couldn’t [sarcasm] possibly [/sarcasm] vindictively want to make their “crazy bitch of an ex” who “got pregnant” (all by herself!) look even worse to everybody by saying that she lied to him to make it happen.”

    I’m sure that happens to. Quite often. 😉

  54. @Faith–

    No, absolutely. I’m not disputing that, at all. Hell, I’m not even disputing that men need to wear a freaking condom if they are that concerned. I’m just confused that anyone is trying to pin all of the responsibility on preventing pregnancy on men, while simultaneously trying to deny that there are many women who have lied about it for specifically that reason, and blame them if they believe their partner when she says that she is on the pill, or infertile, and it deliberately not telling the truth.

  55. It does happen.

    Oh, I’m sure that it does happen. I’m also sure that it’s quite rare. Think about it—you can probably think of at least 100 women you know who’ve had an unintended pregnancy. Of those pregnancies, how many were the result of deception on the part of the woman—deliberate lying or BC sabotage in order to get pregnant? I can’t think of any. Some women on this thread could think of one or two. I’m not aware of any studies on the matter, but “anecdatally”, I’d guess less than one percent, easy. Most unintended pregnancy is the result of BC failure. For me to use the phrase “quite often” for anything…..I’d be expecting at least in the neighborhood of a quarter of the time.

  56. I’m just confused that anyone is trying to pin all of the responsibility on preventing pregnancy on men, while simultaneously trying to deny that there are many women who have lied about it for specifically that reason, and blame them if they believe their partner when she says that she is on the pill, or infertile, and it deliberately not telling the truth.

    EXCEPT NO ONE IS DOING THAT. Sorry for the yelling, but this conversation is REALLY effing frustrating.

    The world is a big place. I’m sure many women have lied or deceived their partners. What we’re saying is that it’s not a “trend” in any real sense, and that there is not a large number of women doing this, relative to the female population generally.

    And we’re not trying to pin all the responsibility for preventing pregnancy on men. Are you kidding? In the real world, the responsibility is disproportionately on women. It is far, far more on women. We’re trying to pin a tiny bit of it on men, by saying that if men are sure they don’t want to be daddies, then they should take the steps that are within their control to not be daddies. What’s going on is that dudes are saying they don’t want to take ANY responsibility at all; they just want to either terminate their parental obligations or force women to have abortions.

    And no one is “blaming” men for believing their partner if their partner lied about being on birth control. We are all in agreement that it’s shitty for women to lie. We are also saying that (a) a lot of the men who claim their partner lied may actually have had a partner who was telling the truth and who really did experience a birth control failure, because birth control does fail; and (b) if it was a manipulation, that does suck, but it doesn’t justify then forcing your partner to have an abortion, or refusing to support your child. Instead, men would be better suited to try to prevent pregnancy from their end. That isn’t a blame game, it’s a constructive suggestion for what men can actually DO other than bitching about the fact that they don’t get to decide what their pregnant girlfriends do.

  57. I really don’t understand why these men’s rights groups don’t use some of that time and energy they’re investing in enabling men to forgo their responsibilities and put it towards pressuring drug companies to create more and better forms of male birth control.

    Like it or not, women are the ones who carry a pregnancy to term. That gives us more of a say regarding whether to continue with the pregnancy. I’ll be more than happy to give men the exact same say when they are the ones who get pregnant and have to give birth or undergo a surgical procedure that is not always available.

    I understand where men are coming from when they feel that they may have been tricked. If I were a man I would be demanding more forms of male birth control so that I could have more control over whether or not to become a father. As a woman who is paranoid about getting pregnant at this point in my life, I would fully support that! For the time being, men have the choice of using condoms or simply going without. Neither will kill them.

    People who choose to engage in sex must be ready to accept responsibility for the outcomes of that choice. Women do have the option of terminating the pregnancy, but we are the ones who also get pregnant and have to give birth. Not all women are comfortable with terminating and their wishes should be respected. If the woman is not comfortable with terminating the pregnancy or that option isn’t available to her, then it no longer is about the man and the woman; its about the child and what is best for the child.

    Both parents are responsible for the well-being of their children, but MRA activists arguments that men should be able to tell women what to do with their bodies or that if the woman chooses to continue with the pregnancy, she should not get any support from the father tells me that their true intention to enable men to escape taking responsibility for their own bodies and for their children.

  58. That isn’t a blame game, it’s a constructive suggestion for what men can actually DO other than bitching about the fact that they don’t get to decide what their pregnant girlfriends do.

    (emphasis mine)

    This is precisely the point. When the hypothetical woman is allegedly lying about her contraceptive use, she is not yet pregnant. She lies in order to get that way. Nowhere in the article that you are basing this entire post about was there a single assertion that men should have the right to decide whether or not their female significant other has an abortion, or the assertion that they should have any kind of control over the decision she makes once she is pregnant. Nowhere.

    This article also does not discuss couples whose birth control, whether used by the male or female in the relationship, has simply and unintentionally failed. This article was about how unfair it is when women lie to their male partners about being on contraceptives when they are not, in order to get pregnant.

  59. Also, cacophonies, read the article. For example, this paragraph:

    “Last year, Matt Dubay, a 25-year-old computer programmer in Saginaw, Michigan, says he had the same reaction when his girlfriend, Lauren Wells, allegedly pulled something similar. Dubay claims she told him she was infertile and was using a contraceptive “as an extra layer of assurance and protection.” But when she got pregnant anyway and told Dubay she was keeping the baby, he said he wanted no part of it. Earlier this year, he argued in court that her alleged deception should exempt him from having to pay child support. His lawyer, Jeffrey Cojocar, reasoned that Michigan’s paternity law violated the Constitution’s equal-protection clause: If the situation were reversed and Dubay had gotten Wells pregnant after claiming he was sterile, he’d have no way of forcing her either to keep or to abort the child. The judge didn’t buy his argument, but it’s helped open a broadening national dialogue: Where do you draw the line between deadbeat dad and victim of deceit?”

    Also:

    “Then things got weird. She mysteriously quit drinking. She disappeared for days at a time. She told him she was considering going off birth control, though she assured him she hadn’t yet. By July, Jeremy had had enough and broke things off. Then in August, he says, she told him she was pregnant and was keeping it. “She was pregnant all of May, all of June, and all of July,” Jeremy says. “I said, ‘Why didn’t you tell me about this sooner?’ She’s like, ‘I didn’t want you to influence my decision.’ Something that has potential impact on me for the rest of my life, she doesn’t want me influencing her decision!?”

    More than a year and $6,500 in legal fees later, Jeremy has a 7-month-old boy he’s never met, a child-support case pending, and a judge who’s less than sympathetic toward his allegations of contraceptive deceit. Even his own attorney told him he’d better ditch that dream of becoming a full-time musician and focus on the computer gig that he’d hoped would only supplement his income: “She was like, ‘You know what? You gotta be a man. You’re gonna have to have a job 40 hours a week, and you need to support this child—this is your responsibility and your obligation.’ And I’m thinking to myself, like, ‘How is all of this my responsibility and my obligation when none of this was my choice?'””

  60. Jill, I read the article, including the parts you cited. What’s happening is that the author, and the men that the author is interviewing are making comparisons, and it is valuable to consider tone and context when reading what’s being said. No one is suggesting that men should be able to force a woman to either keep or abort the child. The comparison was used to illustrate just how little control a male would have over deciding whether or not to be a parent, simply because he believed his significant other when she said that she was using a type of contraceptive that allowed for them to have otherwise unprotected sex. Which, of courses, blames him for not being a good enough judge of character to begin with. As if men who adamantly do not want children are going to enthusiastically have unprotected PIV intercourse with a woman that they did not trust to tell the truth about her BC status.

    All that anybody quoted in this article are actually trying to argue is the fact that, because they were deceived into becoming a parent, and their mind was not magically changed by a sonogram, that they should not be held financially responsible for the child.

  61. One more thing: The argument about whether or not a man should be able to have a decision about what a woman does with her pregnancy is irrelevant here, because here, we’re talking about a woman lying about being on birth control in order to get pregnant. Not what should happen if an authentically unplanned pregnancy should occur, where the woman decides to carry the pregnancy to term.

    1. Cacophonies, I’m honestly not sure what we’re talking about because I don’t understand the point of your comments. I get it that you’re drawing a line between pregnancies which occur because the woman lies, and pregnancies which occur because they are “authentically unplanned.” Ok. But… so? Other than admitting “Yes some pregnancies have happened because women got pregnant on purpose without the consent of their male partners,” what do you suggest the solution is? That men shouldn’t have any parental obligations if they didn’t want that child?

  62. All that anybody quoted in this article are actually trying to argue is the fact that, because they were deceived into becoming a parent, and their mind was not magically changed by a sonogram, that they should not be held financially responsible for the child.

    And again, good luck with that argument, because the alternative is that the state pay the other half of the child’s support instead, and the state is *so* responsive to the idea that the taxpayers should have to pay the consequences when people have sex. *snort* The state won’t even pony up for a frickin’ *abortion*, and frequently makes it damn near impossible for the pregnant woman to get state-funded insurance on a timely basis.

    Child support is owed to a child. If a man emits sperm into a fertile woman’s body, there could be an embryo. If the woman chooses to let the embryo develop in *her* body, there will be a child. If there is a child, the child deserves support from both parents. Really, this is not rocket science. And frankly, the number of women who actually sabotage their own birth control in order to get knocked up is dwarfed by the number of manipulative male douchebags who would jump through every legal hoop available in order to get out of paying the support. In a world where a man just had to “prove” that his girlfriend was a lying, hysterical slut who got herself knocked up on purpose to catch a man in order to get out of paying child support, women who suffered accidents after taking every reasonable precaution would *frequently* be pressured into getting an abortion or be faced with raising a child with no support. In fact, men would very likely sabotage their girlfriend’s birth control (because in real life, this behavior is documented) and *then* fuck her over by lying and claiming that she did it instead so they could get out of paying child support when she attempted to dump their ass to the curb for being an abusive jerkwad. And we all know, from the fair and balanced treatment of rape victims by the justice system, that of *course* when a man is lying his ass off about having abused a woman, *no* one will decide that the stupid slut needs to be punished for having sex and having had the poor judgement to choose this guy and thus rule in the man’s favor even when the evidence is on *videotape*.

    Men have a 5,000 year history of trying (and usually succeeding) to get out of paying for the children they create. They cannot be trusted. We have *enormous* amounts of historical data demonstrating that men cannot be trusted in this matter; give men the ability to walk away from a child they fathered, and they *will*. Not 100% of men, obviously, but men have such an extensive history of doing this that only a crazy person or a person who hates women and children would *ever* give men any legal way whatsoever to get out of paying for a child they fathered without the consent of the mother and a third party stepping up to the plate to take the father’s place in the child’s life. I’m sorry, it’s like arguing that we should have the legal right to punch people in the nose if they offend us. It’s so self-evidently a bad idea, given five thousand years of documented human history, that it’s kind of incredible that anyone takes it seriously.

    Now, since this always comes up, I will point out that if a boy is raped by an adult woman, he should not have to pay child support, and the judges who ruled that a raped boy *did* have to pay his rapist child support were fucking insane. However, what should happen in this case is that the rapist should automatically lose her parental rights, because why the fuck are we allowing a known rapist of children to be the primary caretaker of a child? The rape victim and his family, in such a case, should have the first right to take custody of the baby if they want to, and if they do not want to, the child should be given up for adoption. Women who rape underage boys should not be permitted to raise children. Period. Particularly and especially not the children that they gained from raping underage boys! No rape victim should ever ever ever have to pay a rapist child support for a child created by that rape, but the no-brainer corollary to this is that when rape has been proven, the rapist should have no parental rights whatsoever. (I would argue that rapists should have to *pay* child support, but have no legal *rights* to the child — give them the worst of all possible worlds, responsibilities but no rights — if the rape victim chooses to keep custody of a child conceived by rape, and this is true whether the victim is male or female.)

  63. In a fair world, pregnancy would operate under conditions of a double dead person’s switch where if either party does not maintain consent to the continuation of the pregnancy, the fetus just disappears. But that’s not the world we live in, and terminating a pregnancy requires invasive procedures on a woman’s body, so the woman must consent.

    In this world, if straight or bi men don’t want to be trapped, there are a number of steps they can take to reduce their chances of this happening. 1) Only have sex with women you trust 2) Get a vasectomy 3) Always use a condom 4) Fight for equal pay for women, so there is less incentive for them to try trapping you (even though I question how likely it is that a woman will improve her economic situation by getting pregnant).

  64. , I’m not seeing any admission that there should be a right to compel the woman to get an abortion if she did in fact lie about being on birth control.

    What part of pro-choice do you not understand*, you ugly, ugly little person**?

    *Of course, you’re obviously not pro-choice in any meaningful way; the problem here is that for some bizarre reason you expect discussion on a feminist blog to involve this sort of repulsive “admission” – indeed, this is probably one of the few bits of common ground between pro-choicers and the anti-choice movement, besides “eating toddlers as a snack is wrong” and “oxygen is useful”.

    ** You may disagree with this characterization. In that case, perhaps you would like to reflect on what you’re advocating here – that a woman with a wanted pregnancy who is found guilty of lying about bc (correctly or not) should be forced to have an abortion.

    we’re talking about a woman lying about being on birth control in order to get pregnant.
    What’s there to say? It’s really crappy; it does happen; there’s no reason to think that it’s a “trend” or even anywhere near common. Ok, that was easy! Except the whole thread already beat me to it. And?

    Not what should happen if an authentically unplanned pregnancy should occur, where the woman decides to carry the pregnancy to term.

    But except for establishing that the woman is/isn’t an impulsive/foolish/self-deluding/pretty crappy person, this isn’t really a meaningful distinction. Either way, if you’re not strapping women down for forced abortions, then you end up with a mother and actual born child, at which point you’re screwing over some poor kid ’cause of what (you think, rightly or wrongly) their mom did to you. Like radical stepmom and Faith said – at that point, it’s about the child.

    Yes, it does suck that Jeremy may have to ditch the dream of becoming a full-time musician and instead work some 40-hour-a-week computer job. But – even though that’s not what he wanted – there’s a child involved now, so he and the mother have to be adults.

  65. Hugo-he’s also free to wear a condom or pull out. Seriously-the last one in particular can’t be sabatoged.

    Please don’t rely on “pulling out” for birth control. You can DEFINITELY still get pregnant/impregnate a woman if you “pull out.”

  66. ok, what about the following legislation:

    The man can never compel the woman to keep or terminate the pregnancy. But, if she wants child support, she must fulfill the following:

    1. Make a reasonable attempt to notify the man of the pregnancy, probably within [x] number of weeks of realizing she is pregnant herself. If the man can later prove in court that she knew she was pregnant and had reason to believe the kid was his but that she never made any such attempt, then he’s absolved of any obligation towards the child. Note that this would be extremely difficult to prove. The woman can raise a defense, at this stage, that notifying the father might have provoked him to act violently against her; once the defense is raised, a presumption to this effect emerges that the man must rebut.

    2. Upon being notified of the pregnancy, the man has a choice to make. If he has no desire to be a father and wants nothing to do with the kid, he can serve notice on the woman of this fact, and can simultaneously post with the court or county clerk or whatever some amount of money sufficient to cover the cost of an abortion, reasonable related expenses and aftercare. He also signs a contract vouching that if some complication occurs and further, unforeseen expenses arise from the abortion, he’ll pay at least half of these. If the woman has a medical condition that makes abortion riskier than usual (or maybe faces another in a range of such extenuating circumstances), she can reply to this effect, and it’s tough luck for the man. But if not, then at this point we know the woman has the right and the ability to end the pregnancy. The ball is entirely in her court. She knows that if she carries the baby to term, the man is *definitely* not going to stick around. If she decides to proceed with the pregnancy despite these facts, it doesn’t seem so unfair to make her shoulder the financial burden of raising the kid — she’s made an informed choice to have a kid whose father wants nothing to do with it.

    The main objection I see to this is that it’s going to result in more kids receiving less parental support, which is bad for society in general. But on the flipside, maybe it will encourage abortion in situations where having a kid might not be such a good idea.

    While I also know this post opens very unpalatably (“if the woman wants child support, she must fulfill the following…”), the fact is that the pregnancy DOES occur in the woman’s body and she’s undoubtedly the party best-situated to discover it, to know who the father might be, to decide whether to end it, etc. So really it’s that the burden is being born by the party most efficiently situated to carry it.

  67. Men have a 5,000 year history of trying (and usually succeeding) to get out of paying for the children they create.

    Boom Shot. Alara Rogers hit the nail on the head. It is only very, very recently that men who do not want to be responsible for a child no longer have the option of simply walking away with *no* consequences. They can still walk away now, but not without consequences.

    Keep that in mind. This argument is about dodging responsibility. Period.

    Betrayal is one of the risks we take if we enter a relationship. Does it suck? Oh hell yeah. But it’s a risk, nevertheless. As a non-sterile person, I know that I risk pregnancy every time I have sex. I can mitigate that risk by using birth control—-but the risk itself will always be present.

    Men who are arguing that they should be given the option of not being financially responsible toward a child they helped create are asking to have their risk eliminated—-by other people. Without the hassle of doing what they can to mitigate the risk themselves.

    And I can understand. It’s a hassle to mitigate your own risk when it comes to pregnancy. (heterosexual) Women do it because we have no choice—it comes with the territory. Now, in this time, in this place, men are also required to do it. And mostly because of the vast numbers of men who walked away, and the burden that placed on others left to pick up their pieces.

    1) Only have sex with women you trust 2) Get a vasectomy 3) Always use a condom 4) Fight for equal pay for women, so there is less incentive for them to try trapping you (even though I question how likely it is that a woman will improve her economic situation by getting pregnant).

    Bill left out a couple. (5) Only have sex with postmenopausal women, or (6) Only have sex with women who have had tubal ligations. (thought that was worth a mention—probably half the women I know over thirty have had tubals). They can also increase their odds of running into women with non-ticking biological clocks by seeking out single mothers—-women who’ve already had the visceral experience of the economic impact of child raising on one’s own. That has the drawback of say, not being able to call her up at 2:00AM to “come down and hear this great band before closing time!!”…but hey, them’s the breaks.

    we’re talking about a woman lying about being on birth control in order to get pregnant.

    Which is exactly why you should always use a condom. If there is the slightest chance that your partner could be lying (either about BC, or about unsafe sex with others), and you seriously do not, under any circumstances want the consequences that could come with non-barrier methods of BC—by all means, protect yourself by using a condom.

  68. No, Dan, the position I’m advocating isn’t anti-choice; it says that abortion’s out there, that it’s an option in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, and that since it’s out there and legal, it’s one of the tools in the toolbox of ways we can correct the injustice of purposeful deception about birth control.

    Also, I’m bothered by how people are reducing this to a child support obligation; even if you can get out of paying child support, you still end up a dad when you didn’t want to be. The obligations are larger than economic. Money can’t fix this situation. Post-conception birth control can.

    This notion that choice should exist in a vacuum and have no consequences is silly. It’s like saying you shouldn’t have to take a sick day or a vacation day to go have an abortion and recover from it– you’re making your choice in a context, and context deafness is silly. Choice brings obligation with it– that’s why it’s mostly reserved for adults. We all live in a messy, complicated world where we have to work with other people, and since post-conception birth control is legal, it’s part of that mix.

    It took decades for condoms to become part of the normal discourse about consensual sex among people who aren’t prostitutes or sailors. Condoms are a lousy solution, though. Maybe there’s going to be a burgeoning movement that addresses this– tests to confirm birth control by a swab in the mouth, contracts that agree there will be an abortion in the event of a pregnancy until the contract is amended or repealed… on the one hand, it’s easy to say these things take away from romance and from the human side of relationships. On the other hand, the same thing was and is said about condoms, but they’re still standard practice, now. As much as wearing a condom is often articulated as the man’s responsibility, these things could easily become part of the woman’s responsibility.

    They probably won’t, though, while we live in a society that sees women as the owners of a scarce resource of sex and men as the junkies trying to get it any way they can. Junkies tend not to make their dealers sign contracts affirming the content and status of the goods. That’s how condoms made it big, right? Women’s demands for safety?

  69. “ok, hypothetically”, or whatever your name is, would you like to buy a clue?

    Child support is a child’s right to be supported by hir parents. Not a benefit that parents obtain from other parents.

    Which makes every single one of your arguments and proposals completely irrelevant.

  70. “Child support is a child’s right to be supported by hir parents. Not a benefit that parents obtain from other parents.”

    Exactly. And by going by that plan, the father is effectively saying, “It’s not my responsibility to pay; I wish you had never been born. I wanted unsafe sex and then was surprised when you happened. What’s sex ed?”

  71. The focus on child support is a red herring. For a lot of men– I’d like to be optimistic and think it’s most men– the issue is that once you have a kid, you have all the non-economic obligations of being a parent.

    Abortion being legal doesn’t mean it exists in a vaccuum. One of the consequences of abortion being legal is that it becomes part of the conversations about how to manage reproduction. Abortion’s not simple– it’s part of a complicated social reality.

    So, Dan, when you say that I’m not actually pro-choice, you’re wrong. I’m not pro-choice like you are, but I believe abortion should be legal. I also believe that once it’s legal, it’s subject to treatment under the law the way so many other things are: tattoos, parental rights, child support. There’s a huge, complicated body of law around tattoos and how they are subject to contractual obligations and copyright infringement laws. That’s as much an issue of bodily integrity as abortion. Parental rights have their own freakin’ court system in most states. Unless I misunderstand, you want to cast abortion in absolute terms: a woman can decide to have, or not to have, an abortion, absolutely, without any consequences and without and external influences that she doesn’t choose to integrate into the decisionmaking process.

    And nothing else in life– nothing at all– is like that.

    So my perspective on this is that if a woman has purposefully put herself in a position– pregnant– where abortion is the only way to put the man back in the position he was in– not imminently going to be a father– before he relied upon her representation of being on birth control, then she has an obligation to have that abortion, and that should be enforceable in a court if it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And that’s a direct consequence of her… choice.

  72. I know a guy – he’s family, so this is not an urban legend – who has a wife who is crazy about children – And I do mean crazy.

    She got pregnant as soon as they were married, and all was good. Soon after number one they had number two, and they were happy. She went on the pill, and they were still happy.

    Then one morning at breakfast she informed him that she had dropped the pill, and she was pregnant. Well they were happy, and had number three.

    Now he made the mistake of trusting her when she got back on the pill, and sure, one day she announced that she had dropped the pill and was expecting.

    They had number four, a lovely girl, and they were happy. Soon thereafter he announced during breakfast that he had had a vasectomy. It took her some time to forgive him for this, but they are still together. And now they have grandchildren, which makes her almost as happy as having her own children.

    I know this is not the situation described in the article, but I besides being a funny story I find it heartening that though your partner deceives you, it needn’t be the end of the world, but ultimately you got to face the facts and do what needs to be done.

  73. The fact that child support is owed to the child and not something that one biological parent owes to the other is a good point that honestly hadn’t even occurred to me, which admittedly is kind of ridiculous, as I remember constant child support struggles between my parents growing up.

    Anyway, I just found it a bit reaching that it was said in the OP that the man was attempting to control his girlfriend’s body, when that wasn’t at all what was being said in that article.

  74. I’m not totally crazy about the “Well, if you don’t want to have kids, don’t ever have sex,” argument for men, because that’s kind of what the fundies always say when they’re slut shaming and stumping against abortion. Why, if wimminz didn’t want teh baybeez, they should have kept their legs shut!, that sort of thing.

    I see what you’re saying, but in the real world, there is literally nothing a man can do after sex has happened to avoid fatherhood. So “don’t have sex if you don’t want kids” is a statement about morality when applied to a woman (which I don’t agree with) and a statement about biology when applied to a woman (which doesn’t give a shit what I think about it).

  75. >>So my perspective on this is that if a woman has purposefully put herself in a position– pregnant– where abortion is the only way to put the man back in the position he was in– not imminently going to be a father– before he relied upon her representation of being on birth control, then she has an obligation to have that abortion, and that should be enforceable in a court if it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And that’s a direct consequence of her… choice.

    Lying isn’t a crime. There is no contract, social or otherwise, that says I cannot lie to you unless you have a signed document from me stating otherwise. I can lie. Watch this: your statement was well thought out. See? Where are you going to prosecute me? I might have hurt your feelings. Maybe, if you’re that kind of person, you’ll need some kind of chocolate or porn or something to cheer you up. Guess what? No court is ever going to make me pay for your porn. Or chocolate. Or what have you.

    Here is a truth: putting your penis in side of a vagina sometimes makes babies. Here’s another one: sometimes people lie. You cannot sue because you trusted someone and she lied to you. I’d have lots and lots of lawsuits.

  76. Since when did we mimick right wing anti-choicers with such nonsense as telling people if they don’t want kids to wear a condom? Consenting to sex or even unprotected sex is not consenting to being a parent- if that were teh case abortion and adoption would go out of the window for anyone who wasn’t raped because consent to sex=consent to parenthood.

    I think men should the option of forfeiting paternal rights which means that they are in no way-financial or otherwise responsible or tied to that child except by DNA. There is no record of him in the child’s life just a record of family medical history. He becomes simply an anonymous sperm donor. No rights, no responsibilities. I don’t se ehow this forces women into abortions unless they truly did get pregnant ON PURPOSE with the assumption child support or his support would come with labor and delivery. If so, that’s awful.

  77. Also children do NOT have a right to their biological parents’ love, money, attention or anything else. Hence why ADOPTION is an option. Children aren’t owed anything from a parent who doesn’t want them unless that parent decides to maintain cusotdy/contact of/with that child.

    It has to suck to have a father who doesn’t love you, but then again you can’t expect a man to change his mind about wanitng or loving a child just because they share DNA anymore than you can expect the same of a woman.

    Being a man does not mean being a father anymore than being a woman means being a mother or wanting a child or loving your children.

    1. Also children do NOT have a right to their biological parents’ love, money, attention or anything else. Hence why ADOPTION is an option. Children aren’t owed anything from a parent who doesn’t want them unless that parent decides to maintain cusotdy/contact of/with that child.

      The law and generations of custom disagree with you on the money part. Biological parents are financially responsible for their offspring while they are minors. If BOTH parents agree to give up the child for adoption, then and only then is their financially responsibility severed (barring cases of demonstrated unfit parenting where the State steps in to sever parental rights).

      ONE parent cannot decide to do this unilaterally (and this works both ways – the mother cannot give up a child for adoption against the father’s wishes, and if that father becomes the custodial parent then it is the mother who has to pay child maintenance to him).

  78. Alara Rogers: “And again, good luck with that argument, because the alternative is that the state pay the other half of the child’s support instead, and the state is *so* responsive to the idea that the taxpayers should have to pay the consequences when people have sex.”

    Well, I cannot speak for the State, but speaking as an individual taxpayer and voter, many of my taxes are already spent in the interests of justice, and since I want to live in a just society this has my complete support. I can easily imagine circumstances where forcing a biological father to pay child support would be unjust, and I would wholeheartedly support some of my taxes going to support a system which adjudicates such cases, and if necessary, provides the necessary State support.

  79. I agree practically that for men who are deceived into having a child by a manipulative partner there are few options, and the best interests of the child should probably be considered first and foremost, but I find the men-bashing rhetoric here problematic. As someone who has lived in places where feminism is a dirty word and has to explain ad nauseum that being a feminist is not about hating men, reading these comments make me shudder.
    First, *men* as a category have not spent the last 5,000 years shirking responsibility for parenting children. Laughably ignorant/bigoted statements like that add absolutely zero to a conversation. Second, as others have pointed out the “if you have an abusive, lying partner it’s your own damn fault” arguments towards men, and the anti-sex rhetoric here, are kind of disturbing. If a man poked a hole in a condom and told his partner he was using protection, would your response be, “it’s your own damn fault for picking a lousy partner?”
    I recall that the very same people blaming men for not doubly protecting themselves have in the past claimed that men lying about condom usage are committing rape, since the woman hadn’t consented to unprotected sex. How is the exact situation but with gender reversal any different? If not, then how is that not a blatant double standard?
    Also problematically, it implies that women are untrustworthy enough that any man who takes woman at her word about taking bc or being infertile should be slut-shamed for believing her. That’s a pretty bleak view of men AND women.
    Obviously, I doubt this is a trend, but I don’t see why, in the few cases where it may happen, we have to judge men who get tricked as douche bags who deserved it.

  80. “Since when did we mimick right wing anti-choicers with such nonsense as telling people if they don’t want kids to wear a condom?”

    …you do realize that if you’re fertile and having regular, procreative sex that it’s pretty much the opposite of nonsense to say that you have to do something to avoid having babies, right? This isn’t airy-fairy, pie-in-the-sky horsefeathers. It’s why it’s laughable every time Michelle Duggar announces that she’s pregnant like it’s some kind of zomg miracle.

    For women, the ability to not become a parent extends into the gestational period, because it’s gestating in her body. For men, the decision as to whether or not they’re willing to risk becoming a parent has to be made before they ejaculate into a woman’s body. She has an absolute right to bodily integrity, any steps taken to prevent parenthood after that point hinge on her consent, and consequently he can’t be guaranteed an outcome. This is not a difficult concept.

  81. “The fact that child support is owed to the child and not something that one biological parent owes to the other is a good point that honestly hadn’t even occurred to me”

    So which part of the words “child support” did you not understand?

    It’s right there in the name, and it’s been said upthread also. This isn’t a write-only medium.

  82. Since when did we mimick right wing anti-choicers with such nonsense as telling people if they don’t want kids to wear a condom?

    Since when did we mimick right wing anti-choicers with such nonsense as telling people if they don’t want to go flying through the windshield in a car accident, they they oughta wear a seat belt?

    Look, I know abortion is a legal option, and I want it to stay that way. I also know that I don’t want one if it is not medically necessary. Y’know, that whole pesky, “my body, my choice” thing. All my sexual partners know what my decision is going to be beforehand, too. In the event of birth control failure, I’m having a baby. They then have the information they need to make the decision—is this a risk (however small) they want to take? If not, then they do have other options. Choosing a different sexual partner is one of them. Vasectomy is another. Yadda, yadda.

    See, if these guys were serious about not desiring fatherhood, they’d have the damn vas already. Or maybe, they’d choose a woman who has already had a tubal ligation (but ooh! then they’d have to have sex with a woman who has icky scars! *gasp!*).

    Condoms are a lousy solution, though.

    Why?

    Maybe there’s going to be a burgeoning movement that addresses this– tests to confirm birth control by a swab in the mouth, contracts that agree there will be an abortion in the event of a pregnancy until the contract is amended or repealed…

    Don’t see how a swab in the mouth could confirm use of a diaphragm, IUD, cervical cap, or….condom. Isn’t a condom pretty good evidence of birth control?

    I’ll tell you what though—you guys have me sold on the idea of the contract, provided the contract is sworn to in front of a judge, with attorneys for both parties present. That should really help matters! “hey honey….before we have sex, there’s this thing we gotta do..” “Oh, don’t worry, I brought condoms!” “no, not that…I want you to sign a contract that if the condom breaks and you get pregnant, you have to have an abortion.”

    Fer crissake people. This is basic sex ed. I’ll say it again—this is all about regaining the privilege of walking away with no consequence. Take charge of your own fertility, dude.

  83. Something that perhaps the folks who are in favor of men being able to legally escape responsibility for fatherhood should think about:

    When a woman discovers she is pregnant, she has three options:
    – get invasive surgery in a delicate body part, quite likely after running a gauntlet of screaming wingnuts telling her she is a murderer
    – take medication that causes agonizing abdominal cramps
    – endure 9 months of bloating, discomfort, getting fat, risk of stroke, risk of permanent incontinence, risk of vaginal tearing, risk of medical complications costing large sums of money, risk of death

    A woman doesn’t have the option to sign a paper or jump through legal hoops and presto magico, her problems go away. She has to have SURGERY. Or AGONIZING ABDOMINAL CRAMPS.

    So if we were discussing making men who want to forfeit the right to be fathers, and the responsibility thereof, go get lengthy and unnecessary colonoscopies (after running a gauntlet of people screaming at them that they are bad men and terrible fathers) before they can sign any legal papers, it might start to *approach* being fair to women… though of course it would still be unfair to any children who are born.

    You people are talking like abortion is an easy, comfortable option that’s no more dire for a woman than going before a judge and signing some papers would be. No. It is *surgery* or it is *severe painful cramping*. It runs a slight risk of death (pregnancy, of course, is a greater risk, but you know what has no risk of death? Paying child support. Since you had to get a job anyway to support yourself, it is no *more* likely to risk your life that you have to make more money and then not get to spend it on yourself.)

    I’m sorry. This simply cannot be an option for men, because LIFE IS NOT FAIR and most of the unfairness is on women. If a woman’s birth control fails, she runs THE RISK OF DEATH, and the absolute certainty that she is going to have to endure a medical procedure. Maybe it’s just taking some meds that feel like the worst period cramps ever. Maybe it’s getting sharp objects poked up her vagina. Maybe it’s 9 months of increasing discomfort, followed by a brief period of excruciating pain, followed by 6 weeks in which she’s not allowed to have sex, medically. But it’s something. If a man’s birth control fails… he runs the risk of having to pay child support. Which, if a woman does not get an abortion when she has the opportunity, is the *exact* same risk she’s going to run.

    When a child is born, both man and woman have the same risks and responsibilities toward it. There’s nothing special about men that makes them have to pay child support; if a woman wants nothing to do with a baby but couldn’t get an abortion, and the man wants custody and won’t let her give it up for adoption, *she* will have to pay the child support. The right to abortion is grounded in the right to protect your own body from physical danger, not the right to avoid paying, or even the right to not be a parent; if there were an easy and safe way to extract an embryo from a woman’s body and implant it in an artificial womb, which was no more risky than abortion, and the father wanted to pay for this to be done rather than the woman getting an abortion, it would make perfect sense to say “No, you can’t abort the baby, we’re going to safely and easily take it out of your body and then it won’t physically be your problem anymore… but you’re still going to have to pay child support, and you’re still going to *have* the existence of a baby to deal with.”

    The only way it could ever be fair to let a man forfeit the responsibility of supporting a child he created through an act of sex he consented to would be if the taxpayers were willing to pony up to support any child whose parents weren’t willing to do it. Good luck convincing the taxpayers of the US of that. If any parent can forfeit their parental rights voluntarily at any time, and the state will step up to the plate and offer the child the support the parent would have… well, yay. That’d be great. Can they pay for college, too? Because I’m sick of seeing smart young people with dysfunctional families who refuse to pay for their college, or even give the kids the tax forms they need to apply for financial aid, having to wait until they’re 26 before they can go to college because you can’t get fin aid without parental assistance until you’re 26, married or in the army.

    Until the day that the American taxpayer is happy to support other people’s children just because the parents didn’t want to, though, men can only prevent fatherhood by controlling their *own* fertility. If it is not your body, you don’t get any say anymore on whether it is a baby — true if you’re a woman who has already given birth to it, true if you’re a man who has already fertilized the egg — and once it’s a baby, the parents must pay, unless they both agree to yield custody and give the child up for adoption.

  84. 1) sorry for the quasi-double post above, it looked like my posts weren’t getting into the system

    2) condoms ARE a lousy solution. you can’t feel anything when you wear a condom. what’s the point?

  85. This is wrong. Fraud is a crime, and you can sue people civilly for fraud. You can’t sue people for lying to you, but you can sue them to the extent that you were hurt by relying on their lie, and they knew they were lying and that you’d rely on it.

    1. This is wrong. Fraud is a crime, and you can sue people civilly for fraud. You can’t sue people for lying to you, but you can sue them to the extent that you were hurt by relying on their lie, and they knew they were lying and that you’d rely on it.

      Ok. So men can sue for damages, and if they can prove that their female partner lied, that they relied on it, and that now they’ve suffered, they may get damages. What’s your point? That part of those damages should be the ability to sever their obligation to their child? It doesn’t work like that.

  86. And I… totally did that wrong. I meant to do this, I think:

    Lying isn’t a crime. There is no contract, social or otherwise, that says I cannot lie to you unless you have a signed document from me stating otherwise. I can lie. Watch this: your statement was well thought out. See? Where are you going to prosecute me? I might have hurt your feelings. Maybe, if you’re that kind of person, you’ll need some kind of chocolate or porn or something to cheer you up. Guess what? No court is ever going to make me pay for your porn. Or chocolate. Or what have you.

    Here is a truth: putting your penis in side of a vagina sometimes makes babies. Here’s another one: sometimes people lie. You cannot sue because you trusted someone and she lied to you. I’d have lots and lots of lawsuits.

    This is wrong. Fraud is a crime, and you can sue people civilly for fraud. You can’t sue people for lying to you, but you can sue them to the extent that you were hurt by relying on their lie, and they knew they were lying and that you’d rely on it.

  87. Two things never to say before sex (if you really want to have sex):

    1) “I know you say you are on the pill, but I do not trust you so I am going to wear a condom anyway.”
    2) “I know you say you are on the pill and I completely believe you, but I am going to diminish my own sexual pleasure by wearing a condom because I want to actualize my own reproductive autonomy.”

    For those who complain about the lack of peer-reviewed studies that show how often this occurs, think about the primary difficulty in conducting such a study: requiring women to self-identify as liars. If they lie to get pregnant, how do you expect them to tell the truth about their earlier lies. That is not to say it cannot happen, but how reliable do you think the data would be?

    As for those who think that a woman can’t give up a child for adoption without the father’s consent, you should google “safe haven laws.” Most states have them in order to prevent infanticide and, usually, when the parent drops off the child at a safe haven, it is “no questions asked.”

    Finally, for all of the commenters who think we can not let men unilaterally decide to terminate their rights because the state will not want to step in to support the child, please open your eyes. We are living in a welfare state. The government is already throwing a ton of money at children (whether for support, or to collect support).

    -Jut

  88. And I… totally did that wrong.

    Arguing? Appearing to be a decent, compassionate human being? Both? Well, yes, I would have to agree . . .

  89. Jut Gory:
    The whole “I can’t talk about this without being incredibly untactful and ruining my chances at getting laid” is so 12th grade.

    Here’s your solution: “I know you’re on the pill, but I’d like to be extra-safe and wear a condom.”
    If your partner is an adult, she should respect that. If she doesn’t, you need to high-tail it out of there. Nobody’s making you have sex with her.

    Just like how I wouldn’t have sex with any guy who complained about wearing a condom.

    1. Exactly what Samson Shawe said. You don’t have to say “I don’t trust you.” Look, when I was in a relationship I was on birth control and I still insisted on condom use — not because I didn’t trust my partner or because he didn’t trust me, but because it was the safest choice. It was never really up for discussion. Just get out the condom and put it on. What do you think she’s going to say? “No, you can’t wear that?”

  90. 2) condoms ARE a lousy solution. you can’t feel anything when you wear a condom. what’s the point?

    For some hormonal birth control is a lousy solution. Risks include:
    Eye problems or vision impairment
    Gallbladder disease and gallstones
    Embolism
    Resistance to Insulin
    Immune system suppression
    Heart attack
    Stroke
    Breast tumors and liver tumors
    Ectopic Pregnancies
    Links with certain cancers such as cervical cancer
    Blood clots in legs, lungs, heart and brain
    Jaundice

    In addition to the mere side effects of:
    Nausea, vomiting, constipation, or bloating
    Irregular menstruation and spotting
    Breast swelling or tenderness
    Decreased libido
    Weight gain or loss of appetite
    Mood swings, anxiety, nervousness or depression
    Changes in vaginal discharge and vaginal infections
    Headaches, dizziness and fatigue
    High blood pressure and cholesterol
    Acne or permanent discolouration of the face
    Fluid retention
    Bone density loss
    Hair loss or changes in hair growth
    Enlarged ovarian follicles

    Lack of sensation? Deal with it.

  91. Two things never to say before sex (if you really want to have sex):

    1) “I know you say you are on the pill, but I do not trust you so I am going to wear a condom anyway.”
    2) “I know you say you are on the pill and I completely believe you, but I am going to diminish my own sexual pleasure by wearing a condom because I want to actualize my own reproductive autonomy.”

    So you are, by your own repetitive and explicit admission, willing to risk impregnating a woman because you don’t want the trouble of putting on a condom, much less mentioning that you’re doing so.

    So it is therefore impossible for any woman to trick or trap you into child production, since you have already made this calculation (that wearing a condom isn’t worth the physical or social discomfort it might cause you, because preventing pregnancy isn’t worth it.) Since you can’t be tricked into doing something you’ve enthusiastically volunteered for.

    So what’s your problem again?

  92. Seriously, Susa.

    “If I wear a condom, I might have to share the experience one of the most frequent though least life-threatening side effects of the pill! Like a woman!”

    Horrors.

  93. The elements of fraud are:

    a representation of an existing fact;
    its materiality;
    its falsity;
    the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity;
    the speaker’s intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff;
    plaintiff’s ignorance of its falsity;
    plaintiff’s reliance on the truth of the representation;
    plaintiff’s right to rely upon it; and
    consequent damages suffered by plaintiff.

    And I think we hit all of those in these situations, and I’m proposing that it’s reasonable to order specific performance upon a finding of fraud in assertion of birth control.

    1. How is having an abortion “specific performance”? That does not make sense at all. Sorry.

      Fraud generally requires a deliberate misrepresentation of facts in order to financially profit. I think you’d have an awfully hard time showing a woman got pregnant on purpose in order to get money from a man. First, you’re suggesting specific performance as cure, which, despite making no sense, would only be applicable before the child was born; before the birth of the child, though, there isn’t even an arguable financial profit. After the child is born, the money is going to support the child.

      There’s also the “plaintiff’s right to rely upon the representation” that you mention. That’s not exactly a home-run for your side.

      The only possible way I can think of for someone to have a successful fraud case is if the child isn’t actually theirs. But if the kid is yours, there’s no sound legal arugment I can come up with to support a fraud claim.

  94. None of those elements require that the person committing fraud intend to financially or economically profit. and anyway, the person who got pregnant via deception has already benefitted, by getting pregnant (saying they haven’t benefitted until they’ve given birth is like saying a diamond thief hasn’t profitted until he’s sold the stolen diamond). As to plaintiff’s right to rely on the representation, most states don’t phrase it like that, because there’s a strong basis to say that where the person committing the fraud intends for the victim to rely on the representation, a right to reliance is implicit. So, for example, in New York, the elements read as: misrepresentation, known by the defendant to be false and made for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to rely upon
    it, justifiable reliance and damages. I can see that “justifiable reliance” might still be a sticking point, but that’s why it’s a fact-sensitive inquiry: did the guy have a reasonable basis on which to rely upon the woman’s assertion that she was using birth control?

    And specific performance is any remedy that exists at equity instead of at law. So, if damages aren’t a sufficient remedy (as they are not in this case), then specific performance– a court order directing an abortion– is appropriate at equity.

    Look, it’s a good intellectual exercise, but obviously it isn’t practicable– you can’t make anyone have an abortion they don’t want or at least agree to. we’re not going to take a woman who disobeys a court order to get an abortion, and throw her in prison and give her that abortion. That would make us… China.

    However, it’s upsetting that there’s so little repprobation in this comments thread for the women who do this stuff… and so little sympathy for the guys who get trapped like this. Even if it’s not a broad societal trend, it still happens, and there should be some serious thought as to how it should be dealt with, other than saying “hey, sucks to be a guy, huh? Well, the Pill sucks, and at least the rest of life is designed for your benefit, so don’t cry over this little stuff, oppressors! Better use condoms!”

    Which is, as people have pointed out, what right-wingers say about abortion, minus the Privilege condemnation.

    1. Ok, none of the elements of fraud in Wikipedia require someone to financially or econically profit, but as a legal concept, fraud usually does require some sort of benefit — I don’t know that the courts are going to look at the child as a benefit, even if it was desired by the person who had it.

      I know what specific performance is, and no, it is not just any remedy that exists at equity instead of at law. It usually (though not always) relates to contract law, and it doesn’t generally apply to personal services. There’s a lot more I could get into here, but suffice it to say, abortion definitely does NOT fit the bill. Not by any stretch.

      Anyway, I don’t know what the heck you want. There isn’t enough reprobation for women who do this stuff? Like half the commenters have said it’s fucked up that anyone would do this! What do you expect us to do, spend a whole comment thread being like, “Yeah, women are the WORST!” Come on now. This is a feminist blog. If you’re looking for fear-mongering about bitches tricking nice boys into getting them pregnant, and then sympathy for dudes who want to get out of paying child support, you’ve come to the wrong place.

  95. I can see that “justifiable reliance” might still be a sticking point, but that’s why it’s a fact-sensitive inquiry: did the guy have a reasonable basis on which to rely upon the woman’s assertion that she was using birth control?

    Unless you can demonstrate that a 100% guaranteed effective birth control method exists and was the one allegedly being used, then I can’t see how you can have a “justifiable reliance” on birth control preventing pregnancy no matter whether the woman is telling the truth about using birth control or not. Even medical sterilisation might not work if the woman has non-textbook anatomy that her surgeon didn’t realise and take into account.

    If a man’s semen is ejaculated into a woman’s vagina, there is currently a non-zero possibility of impregnation no matter what contraceptive methods are used. There are no 100% no-pregnancy-ever guarantees.

    So where is the underlying “justifiable reliance” on birth control methods in the first place on which to base a subsidiary “justifiable reliance” claim on?

  96. Argh, and parting thought: i don’t recall if it was here, or on feministing, but somewhere I read a blog post or an essay in the last couple of days about a transition from a commodity model of sex to a performance model (was it from “yes means yes!”? anyway.) and part of placing the decisions about post-sex consequences in the hands of one person, unilaterally, is that it undermines the performance model and makes it seem as though we’re back at a commodity model: not that the setup, performance, and aftermath of the sex act are a collaborative experience, but that the decisionmaking in heterosexual penetrative sex rests unilaterally in the hands of the woman. As long as sex and reproduction are stuck together, mutual interest and some kind of consensus in reproductive decisions is going to be necessary for transitioning to a performance model for the sex act. Otherwise, it’s just everyone watching out for themselves and trying to get what they want. And a bunch of people getting, you know… screwed.

  97. Jut, there is a way to get reliable statistical data. I don’t know the official name of this approach, but the way they get trend data on things like tax fraud and illegal drug use and such is this:

    Survey n people (it would need to be 2xthe number necessary for whatever sufficiently large confidence interval you want around your answer). Those people would flip a fair coin. If you flip heads, you say, “yes, I would screw over a mate by lying to him about my birth control usage” regardless of what the answer is. If you flip tails, you answer truthfully. When you get the answers, you throw out n/2 yeses and find the trend based on the remaining answers. This way, should someone ever come back to you and say you said you did coke, you can say, “The hell I did; I flipped a heads.”

    …So yeah, actually. You can study the trend on this. The fact that there doesn’t seem to be data on this indicates that most statisticians don’t think it’s worth studying, which I argue is because most people understand this number to be ridiculously low rather than ridiculously high. But hey, if you disagree, now you know how to do the study.

    Also, regardless of what the actual money is for things like welfare and getting people to pay child support, a vote would have to be had regarding whether it is an appropriate tax use to absolve fathers from their parental obligations.

    I’m gonna go ahead and vote no. I’m guessing most people would.

    … As Jill said, women have commented on how it’s a dick thing to do. This isn’t something I’m willing to take on on behalf of all women. It’s more likely than not an uncommonly small subset. That doesn’t equal “women suck.” That equals “they suck.” And that’s been said.

  98. So where is the underlying “justifiable reliance” on birth control methods in the first place on which to base a subsidiary “justifiable reliance” claim on?

    Boom. Because this:

    2) condoms ARE a lousy solution. you can’t feel anything when you wear a condom. what’s the point?

    Waahhh, waaahh, waaahh. Y’know, putting in a diaphragm isn’t any fun either, and nonoxynol-9 tastes like hell. But—sure does beat the hell out of pregnancy!

    You value the physical feeling of sex without a condom more than you value not becoming a father. If you aren’t willing to take the small step of using a condom, it’s hard for me to take seriously your claim that you absolutely, positively don’t want to be a father. You want the same “risk” your great-grandfather had—-get a woman pregnant? No problem! Just dump her, call her a slut, and claim it isn’t yours anyway! That’s what “birth control” consisted of back in the day. But pesky DNA testing and peskier laws about child support took all that away.

    Tough. Wrap that rascal and solve your own problem. It comes with the added benefit of protecting against STDs as well.

  99. Lubu… don’t misconstrue what I was saying. I never said that birth control can be justifiably relied upon because condoms suck. Birth control can be justifiably relied upon because anything with a failure rate below 5% can be justifiably relied upon, if you’re a reasonable person. And I also wasn’t saying that I’d rather play the odds of getting a woman pregnant than of putting on a condom. I was saying that it’s a lousy choice to have to make, because condoms are a lousy form of birth control.

    Look, I’m sorry that putting in a diaphragm is a pain in the ass, I’m sorry that it takes a few tries to find a hormonal pill that won’t make you hurl, I’m sorry that IUDs got a bad rep and nobody thinks of using them now… condoms suck and aren’t the answer to everything. once you get the diaphragm in, you get to have real sex where you feel something. Men have just the one option for birth control, and it’s the worst of all possible options in the modern world, because it’s the only one where you don’t even get to feel like you’re actually having sex… and the science behind burgeoning efforts at birth control pills for men doesn’t look good, because even if you reduce sperm production by 95%, you’ve still got millions of sperm floating around to make women pregnant, so it’s of dubious value. And vasectomies carry a much higher chance of being irreversible and causing permanent sterility than do any of the birth control options available for women– only about 90% of men who seek to reverse vasectomies are actually able to. So pity the men who have much starker choices than the panoply of options available to women.

    And re: STDs, who risks getting a one-night-stand pregnant, anyway? You should be able to have real sex, sans tupperware, with your committed partner…

  100. Let me get this straight–condoms don’t feel as good, so you poor widdle baybeees shouldn’t have to wear them when you fuck? OMFG. Get over yourselves, and don’t fucking whine if your girlfriends’ BC fails. Or if you catch an STD. Jaysus.

    BC is a pain in the ass for us, too. The Pill and the IUD can cause serious health complications in some women. Depo and Norplant can have hideous side effects. A diaphragm or cervical cap can work okayish (though it’s a huge PITA to put in), but every OB-GYN has told me that if I go that route, it’s best to have my partners wear condoms because they can slip, be put in wrong, etc.

    And you know? Not for nothing, but I know a WOMAN whose partner lied to her about wanting her to have the baby and marry him when she got pregnant. If he was honest with her, she would have had an abortion (he was American, she was not, being an unwed mother would have gotten her disowned). He disappeared around month seven (during her difficult and medically dangerous pregnancy). But oh, yes, there is an epidemic of women trapping the d00ds.

    I dated a guy who had a child with his ex girlfriend. If I ever heard him whine about paying child support or say that she tricked him, I would have left so fast there would have been skidmarks on his floor. He did what he could do to co-parent his child, and he didn’t act like he needed a fucking cookie for it, and he didn’t go on and on about his ex. Because here’s the thing: He understood that child support was for the child, and that the kid was the priority now.

    And yes, to the poster upthread, it sucks that some women are abusive parents and that they can still have some form of custody of their kids. There are a LOT of abusive men who also have some form of custody of their kids–it’s actually quite common for abusers to get some form of custody. Hell, a man who was in jail for battering and raping his wife–the mother of his children–was able to legally compell the kids to bring them in to jail to visit him. Even though they wanted nothing to do with him.

  101. I guess I should have included the third option in my “times you see ‘just don’t have sex’ crop up in this discussion” comment upthread after all. Strawman, guys who are completely hyperventilating about the possibility of becoming a father at all/before they’re ready, and guys who insist that it’s grossly, monumentally unfair that they can’t behave in as ridiculously irresponsible a fashion as humanly possible and suffer absolutely none of the easily predictable results of having done so.

    Seriously, on what planet do dudes have to have a Serious Talk about actually using condoms? On the one I’m posting from, the Serious Talk comes in when a couple is thinking about ditching them. Also on the one I’m posting from, if you can’t trust a woman not to deliberately get pregnant with your child in the face of your expressly stated desire to remain childless, you almost assuredly can’t trust her not to give you something incurable, fatal, or very painful through negligence.

    Though it’s good to know that there’s really no point whatsoever to having sex if you have to use a condom. I’ll be sure to bake a cake for all my male sex partners to thank them for putting up with intercourse that turns out to have been solely for my benefit. I don’t know if I’m up for the “faking orgasms doesn’t help anybody” speech, though. That could get kind of awkward.

  102. However, it’s upsetting that there’s so little repprobation in this comments thread for the women who do this stuff… and so little sympathy for the guys who get trapped like this.

    Honestly, I’m having trouble seeing how women “trap” men with unplanned pregnancies at all.

    Any person who is sexually active has a responsibility to educate him/herself about sex. If a man IS educated about sex, he would know that, except in very rare circumstances, PIV sex always carries some possibility of pregnancy. If chooses to have it anyway, he is 50% responsible for that pregnancy no matter what the woman said.

    If, OTOH, he really *doesn’t* know that almost any PIV sex can lead to pregnancy, again, it’s his own fault for failing to act like a responsible adult and learning that.

    In either I see men as not being innocent victims “scheming” women, but rather their own laziness about sex ed, or their immaturity in putting the immediate gratification of unprotected sex ahead of risks involved.

  103. oooh, poor widdle babby!!! Sure you toss out there “it might take a couple tries to find a pill that doesn’t make you hurl…”

    You know how long it takes to “try” a pill? You gotta give each one about a month! You know HOW MANY FUCKING BRANDS of condoms are out there? You know how long it takes to test one to see if you like the sensation? Probably with the kind of guy we’re talking about here, 30 seconds. You know there are some condoms with some guys for which they actually IMPROVE the sensation? You know the worst that can happen if it doesn’t? Well let me guess, it isn’t going to cause you to HURL for a month like you so dismissively throw out there.

    Sorry, you don’t get to throw QUITE such a fit and make the women responsible for YOUR laziness.

  104. I’m sorry. I also hate that this difference in sensation is supposedly unique to men, as well. I think sex feels INFINITELY better without a condom. Why do I use them? Because I don’t want a fucking kid. Or the hiv. It takes two people to use a condom for its intended purpose, and I like not drying my vag from the inside out too – just not as much as I like waiting for financial stability for offspring.

    But what you’re saying is this: “I don’t want to be responsible for protection against children AND I don’t want to be responsible for children should they happen.” You don’t get to have both. It boils down to this: a woman needs to ensure protection. A woman needs to carry the fetus or have the surgery to get rid of it. A woman has to pay if the male didn’t want the kid AND refused to do anything to prevent it.

    “Men have just the one option for birth control, and it’s the worst of all possible options in the modern world, because it’s the only one where you don’t even get to feel like you’re actually having sex…” That’s not true. At all. You have many options, just like women do. You can trust your partner, you can pull out, you can abstain, you can get a vasectomy (the same way a woman can use condoms, IUDs, etc etc that you named). Condoms are the most reliable and safest of these methods with the fewest side effects on either partner. IT’S NOT GREAT FOR WOMEN EITHER. Suck it up. If you choose to not use condoms over any of your options, you get the risks that are associated with it. That includes a baby. Tough. (Incidentally, condoms have a failure rate too, and I feel like part of the reason that attention gets shifted from them is because the pressure is on the guy to be the person to report it slipping or snapping open… essentially giving up an even greater role for responsibility in the sex act).

    PS, 5% is sizable. I would bet an obscene amount that the failure rate from typical BC use is higher than the percentage of women that are secretly plotting father-trapping.

  105. You should be able to have real sex, sans tupperware, with your committed partner…

    PrettyAmiable gives you your translation: But what you’re saying is this: “I don’t want to be responsible for protection against children AND I don’t want to be responsible for children should they happen.” You don’t get to have both.

    I understand preferring sex without condoms. Sex without condoms does feel better (IMHO). However—you must be adult about it and realize that there is a chance for pregnancy to occur. The onus is on you to do what you can to protect yourself. I use nonhormonal BC because that is the right choice for my body—and I do so regardless of whether I am in a committed, long-term relationship that could conceivably preclude the use of condoms. Why? Because that’s the best way I can protect myself from an unwanted pregnancy.

    Flash, one out of every four women in the U.S. has had an abortion. You know what that means? It means three out of every four haven’t. Look at the statistics. Odds are that if your girlfriend’s BC fails, she’s going to choose motherhood, not abortion. You want that “guarantee”, that out-clause that allows you to abdicate responsibility. You don’t get that. Because pregnancy occurs in her body. She is the one who will deal with the consequences of her decision, far more than you. She is going to be making the right choice for her. It may not be the right choice for you. That’s why it’s important to do your part and act accordingly: what do you value more? A child-free life and no child support? Or the physical feeling of sex without a condom?

    Child support doesn’t begin to cover the cost of raising a child. According to that article cited above, one schmuck (who didn’t wear a condom) is paying $500 a month in child support for a child that is seven months old. Where I live—Bum Fuck, Illinois, where the cost of living is notoriously cheap—child care for a child that age would be approximately $900 a month. Just the child care, so the mother can work. I imagine it costs more in some locales.

    In light of that, you’d have a hard time convincing a judge or a jury that your girlfriend deliberately “tricked” you into getting her pregnant. Especially since you….still had the option of wearing a condom and chose not to. It literally doesn’t add up.

    A woman isn’t obligated, either morally or legally, to have an abortion if her male partner doesn’t want to become a father, nor should she be. Again, she’s the one who has to deal with the consequences of any decision she makes; she doesn’t get to opt-out of the decision-making power. If you don’t want to take the risk of a partner making the decision to have a child, do what you can to mitigate your risk.

    I’m pretty sure no one would take the bet that there are more women “tricking” men into fatherhood than there are men reassuring women pre-coitus that of course they’d never leave in the event of a pregnancy and of course they’d support her in any decision she made….

    If you say, “You should be able to have real sex, sans tupperware, with your committed partner…” I gotta ask: if your partner is ambivalent about abortion (and you aren’t likely to know this prior to an unplanned pregnancy; she may not know it either), and you still think the feel of your condomless dick in her vagina is more important than supporting her, in her decision, because the pregnancy is in her body….exactly how committed are you to your partner?

    Because from where I stand, it reads like you value the “sans tupperware” over the physical and emotional well being of your partner. If that is true, you aren’t grown enough to be fucking. Please stop now before you hurt someone, including yourself.

  106. This: “I don’t want to be responsible for protection against children AND I don’t want to be responsible for children should they happen.”

    … is *not* what I’m saying. I’m actually saying that I do want to be responsible for children, should they happen, I just don’t want them to happen yet. You keep conflating pregnancy and children, but, related though they be, they’re not the same.

    So my problem here still is that you’re painting a picture of a world where all of the man’s decisionmaking ends once the sex act is complete, and the man’s only stake is as a supporter for whatever the woman decides in her exclusive discretion. But we’re in a time and place where that doesn’t have to be the case: EC and abortion are legal and safe and available (albeit not for everyone in the U.S., which is why everyone should donate to planned parenthood so they can open up more rural access centers). And of course I care about my partner’s emotional and physical wellbeing more than I care about losing the saran wrap, but I don’t care about my non-spouse partner’s wellbeing more than I care about not being a father before I’m ready. And so while i appreciate you saying that I should then just make a point of always putting on a condom, there’s a grey area in the middle where, with a partner I trust, who claims to be on birth control, when we’ve been tested and desire to have a more authentic physical experience with each other, I’m on relatively solid ground in thinking I can lose the condom. And if I’ve misplaced my trust, that’s not so great a crime that it should be punished with a total change in who and what I am.

    Or should I just assume any woman who lets me go unwrapped is secretly trying to make my baby?

  107. TheFlash: I’m actually saying that I do want to be responsible for children, should they happen, I just don’t want them to happen yet.

    Great. So, wear a condom if you have PIV sex, or learn to please your partner in ways that don’t include PIV sex.

    So my problem here still is that you’re painting a picture of a world where all of the man’s decisionmaking ends once the sex act is complete

    The picture being painted is of the world when no man gets to own another person’s body, not even that of a woman he’s had sex with.

    A man cannot make the decision for a woman whether or not she’s going to terminate or continue a pregnancy, because he doesn’t own her body. She gets to decide.

    Once she gives birth, the man begins to have choices again: it’s his legal obligation to pay child support, so he can decide whether he’s going to follow through on his obligation to his child or become a deadbeat dad. (If the woman decides to put the child up for adoption, he can also decide if he’d rather become the custodial parent.) He can decide if his involvement with his child will be the absolute legal minimum of a payment every month, or if he’s going to be an involved dad who takes care of his kid at least part of the time. Those are decisions to do with fatherhood and the child, and aren’t unilateral, obviously: but they are decisions he gets to make.

    And so while i appreciate you saying that I should then just make a point of always putting on a condom, there’s a grey area in the middle where, with a partner I trust, who claims to be on birth control, when we’ve been tested and desire to have a more authentic physical experience with each other, I’m on relatively solid ground in thinking I can lose the condom.

    Only if you want to give up your choice about whether or not to become a dad. If you consider submitting your choices to your partner to be part of a “more authentic physical experience” – and you actively prefer that your partner gets to make all the decisions and take all of the responsibility about whether or not you’re going to become a dad – then by all means, ditch the condom. But then, don’t complain that you don’t have any decisions to make if your partner gets pregnant and decides to have the baby, if you’re the one who decided you preferred “a more authentic physical experience” to getting to make decisions about becoming a dad.

    Or should I just assume any woman who lets me go unwrapped is secretly trying to make my baby?

    If that’s the only way of thinking that will ensure you always wrap your joint, well, at least you won’t be whining about how it’s unfair your deciding to dump all the responsibility on your partner means she got to make all the decisions.

  108. Fine, then what you’re saying is that taking responsibility during gestation as a man would look like forcing an abortion onto a woman who doesn’t want an unnecessary operation.

    No sympathy.

    It looks different for men and women because it IS different for men and women. The combined error in birth control failure results in added physical difficulty prior to birth for the woman only. As part of this, women get the right to decide what happens to their body. Safe surgery is still surgery. What you’re putting forth is disgusting because you can’t be stupid enough to honestly think that because the surgery is safe, it has no capacity to be psychologically scarring.

  109. Just a note, since the main points are being covered so ably… I guarantee you that lack of sensation (and it is not a complete lack, what a load of shit) is a damn sight better than chafing.

    I love penetration, far more than anything else, and I like vigorous sex. I also tend toward the less-lubricated side so no amount of lube changes the fact that discomfort comes along with sex with a condom.

    I have no time for whingeing about lack of sensation. Fucking deal with it.

    NOTE: I am extremely sympathetic to anyone whose partner does such a thing. It’s fucked up.

    That sympathy runs out once he starts suggesting he shouldn’t have to pay child support… or caring at all about the life he helped create… and my utter disgust at anyone dishonest enough to sabotage their contraception is outweighed by my horror at anyone who would force an abortion on someone. Jesus.

    Life can really screw you, it’s not fair: you still have to deal with the reality you have.

  110. Flash, you don’t get to whine and snivel about the evil bitchez who trap the menz into fatherhood and CS payments, and then bleat about how unfair it is that you have to wear a condom because it doesn’t feel good. Seriously–fuck off, you whinging, entitled knob.

  111. Or, at the very least, he wants the right to not have to be responsible for a child he helped to create.

    The average sex act is, what, probably somewhere around 25 minutes, including foreplay. Then she has 9 months to decide on whether or not to have an abortion. So, no, they are not equally responsible for whether or not the fetus comes to term; the pregnancy itself is rather small compared to the fact of carrying to term.

    Additionally, and most importantly, forcing this man into fatherhood is clearly not in society’s best interests. In a pure state of nature, absent the state, there is no such thing as fatherhood as we know it in civilization, therefore, fatherhood is something that is forced on men by the state. Now, I am not saying that this is a bad thing, in fact, in cases where the man went into the situation wanting a child and then reneged, it is in society’s best interests to force fatherhood on men when warranted. The interests of society trump the interests of any particular individual, or eventually society will collapse.

    She has the right to an abortion.

    Now she needs to use it.

    For the good of us all.

  112. “So my problem here still is that you’re painting a picture of a world where all of the man’s decisionmaking ends once the sex act is complete”

    So your problem is essentially that we’re painting a picture of a world where a woman can’t be forced into having surgery or taking pain-inducing and potentially dangerous drugs against her will for someone else’s convenience? I can understand that. I mean, when I envision a world in which women are accorded full human rights, I too can only think “Quelle horreur.”

  113. I just have one small comment about the whole “boo hoo condoms stop my willy feeling nice” argument.

    If the condom is making sex less fun, you need to buy different condoms and/or put extra lube in them. Whatever. There’s no excuse for not protecting yourself (from disease as well as oddspring) when there are so many choices about how you do that, even if you limit that to condoms.

    I have never had any kind of sexual experience (penetration or any other naked-times activity) with a guy who complained about condoms, because a guy who complains about condoms is, to me at least, a guy who is going to have some pretty selfish ideas when it comes to sex. The guys I have chosen to be sexual with have been smart enough to know that a little more lube and knowing what you’re doing make up for losing some sensitivity, and that taking 30 seconds to put on a condom is much better than 18 years bringing up a child you never meant to have.

  114. “Then she has 9 months to decide on whether or not to have an abortion.”

    …where the fuck do you live where this is the case? I am genuinely curious.

  115. Sorry, that should be ‘offspring’, not ‘oddspring’. Clearly my irrational hatred of children is appearing even when I don’t want it to.

  116. And of course I care about my partner’s emotional and physical wellbeing more than I care about losing the saran wrap, but I don’t care about my non-spouse partner’s wellbeing more than I care about not being a father before I’m ready.

    That attitude is custom-made for condom usage, then. If you absolutely, positively, do not desire fatherhood at this stage in your life (which is perfectly understandable) then use a condom. Period. Exclamation point.

    Because chances are quite good that your partner, if she says she is not aiming for motherhood at this stage in her life, is telling the absolute truth. If she becomes pregnant, it is almost a lead-pipe cinch that it was not the result of “trickery”, but rather simple birth control failure. How deep was your conversation with your partner on this issue? What she may mean when she says, “I’m not ready to be a parent” is “I’m using birth control religiously, and counting on it to work.” Have you discussed what happens if the birth control fails? Is she strongly against parenthood, such that she will immediately make an appointment for an abortion? Or would she instead just continue the pregnancy, because parenthood is something she knows she’s going to do sometime in the future, so why not? Do you know the answer to this question? Has it been several years since you’ve had this conversation? People’s life situation and circumstances change. The same woman who was adamantly against parenthood when she was a broke-ass college student may feel differently now that she is older and has a good paying job with benefits.

    If there is the chance—the chance—that she may choose to continue the pregnancy, then you are doing yourself a disservice by not wearing a condom. And you only have yourself to blame. Like several other people on this thread have pointed out, you don’t get to have it both ways.

    And so while i appreciate you saying that I should then just make a point of always putting on a condom, there’s a grey area in the middle where, with a partner I trust, who claims to be on birth control, when we’ve been tested and desire to have a more authentic physical experience with each other, I’m on relatively solid ground in thinking I can lose the condom. And if I’ve misplaced my trust, that’s not so great a crime that it should be punished with a total change in who and what I am.

    And again, chances are that you have not misplaced your trust. The BC merely failed. It happens. If it happens to your partner, it sounds like she’s in for a helluva ride if her BC fails and she doesn’t desire an abortion. Have you pointed this thread out to her? Does she know that you you expect her to have an abortion in the event of birth control failure, regardless of how she feels about it? Even though the abortion would be performed on her body?

    And because this bears repeating:

    I’m on relatively solid ground in thinking I can lose the condom.

    you are NEVER on solid ground in thinking that you can lose the condom, if you and your partner are both fertile. You want to know why? Because that isn’t a robot you are having sex with. It’s a living, breathing, thinking, feeling woman. Believe it or not, when you’re in a relationship, you can’t control the other person. You can only decide what you are and are not willing to risk; what you are and are not willing to deal with. Sometimes, that means compromising with your partner. It may mean finding a different partner. But as long as your partner is a human being, then you have to accept a certain lack of control—and not just about pregnancy.

    Human beings don’t come with remote controls. Deal with it.

  117. So your problem is essentially that we’re painting a picture of a world where a woman can’t be forced into having surgery or taking pain-inducing and potentially dangerous drugs against her will for someone else’s convenience? I can understand that. I mean, when I envision a world in which women are accorded full human rights, I too can only think “Quelle horreur.”

    Let’s reverse roles. Let’s say a man marries a woman, openly wanting children, and let’s say that the women openly expresses the same desire, but really only does this because she wants this particular individual male as a partner. So, during the marriage the woman secretly uses birth control, thus, fraudulently occupying the time and resources of that particular male who would otherwise engage them in other directions, and I’m not aware of any legal recourse such a man would have. This could also happen in the situation with a woman who knows herself infertile but advertises to the contrary. Now, whether this has or has never happened, I’d lay money it has, we have a situation of demonstrable female privilege.

    Not only this, but women can willingly get pregnant without a partner and stick the taxpayers with the responsibility of providing the much-vaunted social safety net. Yet more female privilege.

    The problem is that feminism is not a political theory or movement, but an anti-political one. It seeks to absolve women of, not only any responsibility to society, but of even engaging in the political process of compromise, which is necessary to reconcile disparate interests. Any suggestion that compromise is necessary between male and female interests is met with howls of “patriarchy”. Personally, I spent a little time going onto feminist blogs and asking about how feminists would suggest reconciling disparate male and female interests, and the uniform response was that it was not their responsibility.

    Men are reading the situation loud and clear that a growing number of women feel no moral obligation to men or to their society. And men are responding in kind.

  118. “She has the right to an abortion.

    Now she needs to use it.

    For the good of us all.”

    She has the right to choose whether or not she has an abortion. You’re demanding the right to impose your will on her body. It is NOT for the good of the woman to have an abortion if she doesn’t want one.

    Both partners are equally responsible with regards to ensuring conception doesn’t happen. If you don’t do your part, you cannot impose your will on someone else’s body. Suck it up. Use a condom.

  119. @PrettyAmiable

    I keep telling people that within 20 years, 30 tops, the argument will not be over whether or not women will be allowed to abort but over when a woman will be allowed to have a child. See, the problem for you is that when your behaviors have significant consequences on other people, then you’d better expect those people to begin taking an interest in your behavior. You can bellow all you want about your “rights”, but at some point, with no compromise possible, the very notion of moral consideration is moot and you’re looking at an unbridled, winner-take-all struggle for supremacy. Again, I see absolutely zero acknowledgment on your part of any social obligation to engage in the practice of politics and compromise, which is the sine qua non of civilization.

    You are inviting a raw struggle for power, and one that I wouldn’t bet on your side winning. I know this is redundant, but when your behaviors have significant consequences for others, expect them to take an interest in your behaviors.

    @La Lubu

    A divorce cannot regain expended past time and resources. But you dodge the points which are female privilege, no I’m not denying male privileges either, but they are different ones, and the utter refusal of feminists to engage in practice of politics and compromise that are what makes civilization possible. I see zero evidence that you feel any moral obligations to your society outside of “fighting patriarchy.

    See my warning above about inviting a naked struggle for winner-take-all supremacy.

    One more point I’d like to make to both of you is that you are systematically alienating large numbers of men, like myself, who are genuinely interested in reconciling disparate male and female interests. Look, if I were to see a man hit a woman, let’s say at a singles bar, I’m not likely to come to that woman’s aid, as long as the guy wasn’t seriously out to do permanent physical damage. Why should I? I have seen enough equal female misbehavior to make my default position one where the two parties are reprobate and not worth the effort of protecting.

    Note, I am not justifying the action, or saying that it was deserved. I am saying that I simply have no reason to care. Yeah, that’s right, I just don’t give a hoot, anymore. And that is a quickly growing breed of man that is being created, one which you are too stubbornly bellowing about your rights to engage in political compromise.

  120. Asher, your dog(whistle)s are barking. There isn’t any social safety net benefit that single mothers receive that single fathers aren’t also entitled to receive. I’d also like to see a cite for your claim that women who get pregnant via a sperm bank are receiving TANF or similar benefits; sperm banks screen single women very carefully for financial solvency—similar to the hoops adoptive parents have to jump through.

    No one on this thread has claimed that women never deceive their partners into an unwanted pregnancy. It can happen. It’s just rare, that’s all. Unplanned pregnancy is almost always the result of mere product failure, misuse, or carelessness on the part of the participants (“I’ll put the condom on in a minute! Just…wait!….a…little….lon-……uuhh, ooops).

    In the meantime, since men currently do not have a reversible form of birth control other than condoms, why not use them?

    Here’s the thing. Deceit sucks. Lies suck. Lies from someone you thought you knew, who you’ve shared a life with, who you trusted….those lies really suck. But you know, there isn’t any “get out of liars free” card in life. If you have a partner, he or she could be lying about any damn thing, at any given time. Maybe about birth control. Maybe about money. Maybe about where he/she was last night. Maybe about drug use. Maybe about gambling. Maybe about his/her job. Maybe about his/her family. Maybe about his or her past. This isn’t something you can control. You can’t control what another person does. You can (a)judge for yourself the risks you are willing to take, (b)mitigate those risks to the best of your ability, and (c)control your actions and reactions.

    Life is inherently risky. Dealing with other people is especially risky. For most of us, it’s a risk worth taking. Only you can decide for yourself what risks are worth it to you. And then act accordingly.

    Oh—and just because one person is a douchebag, does not make it necessary to follow their example. Living well, and with honor, is the best revenge.

  121. Asher, your dog(whistle)s are barking even louder.

    A divorce cannot regain expended past time and resources.

    Point taken, but neither can anything else that is designed to mitigate damages. Auto insurance will replace or repair your car, but it can’t un-wreck your car. What a divorce will do is give you the rest of your life back.

    I see zero evidence that you feel any moral obligations to your society outside of “fighting patriarchy.

    Funny, you also see zero evidence that I don’t feel any moral obligations to my society. (I also wonder who you’re talking to with your mention of patriarchy; it’s not a word I use often as I feel it obscures more than it reveals.) But since we’re now on the subject, and I’m feeling charitable, how about some definitions of terms? What are “moral obligations” and how does one demonstrate them? What actions can indicate a lack of moral obligations, either to one’s society, one’s partner, or oneself?

    I’ll start: I think that whining about unwanted parenthood combined with an unwillingness to use birth control, and a past practice of not using birth control, indicates a lack of moral obligations to all of the above—one’s society, one’s partner, and oneself. It’s a flaw that I am willing to forgive in teenagers, what with the lack of life experience, immaturity, and general lack of sex education—but in grown adults? Grown adults expecting others to pick up their pieces? I don’t have a whole lot of patience for that. Granted, people are flawed creatures. All of us. We all fall short of the mark, at times. But this? Deliberate turning of one’s back? Sheesh. If you aren’t grown enough to take charge of your own sexuality—you simply aren’t grown enough to have sex.

  122. First of all, the methods required to go about becoming a single mother versus becoming a single father differ greatly, again, female privilege. Secondly, even single mothers who are financially secure are afforded all sorts of considerations on the job place and utilize resources, such are public schooling, for which they probably to not contribute equal to their usage. Do single father have the same access? Sure, but irrelevant given the different methods of becoming a single parent.

    Awhile ago, I personally knew a young woman of 25 whose stated goal in life was to become financially independent enough to become a single mother and keep her motherhood explicitly separated from her sex/romantic life. All a woman needs to do to make this choice is one night and a willing male, not too difficult that. She was also uninterested in anything long-term, which, in large numbers, effects the overall mating and dating market. Again, I point back to the fact that when your behaviors affect others you can be sure those others will take an interest in your behaviors. This life-path is something that is available only to women, thus, female privilege.

    And you say that lies suck? Sure, but the consequences of a woman lying to a man is often far greater than the reverse. Also, you claim that living life with honor is the best revenge, but that is only true where living life with honor is something that is socially promoted, which, today, it is not. That goes equally for both sexes. The response, which you studiously refuse to address, is not a life of honor but of men growing increasingly apathetic to the interests of women and of society, in general. All of the arguments you are presenting will simply be met with “who cares?”, since they utterly fail to engage the interests and concerns of men.

    You are A) completely dodging the point of female privilege B) unwilling to engage in any sort of political compromise that is required for a well-functioning civilization.

  123. “Uhh, you’ve never heard of divorce?”

    Apparently not. Which is kind of weird, since I’m reasonably sure that you can even score the more difficult annulment in most major Christian religions if you marry someone and discover that they’re infertile (by accident, disease, birth, or design) and misrepresented that fact prior to marriage. It’s one of the older accepted grounds for divorce. In a situation where the divorce was precipitated by deceit on the part of the wife, the husband would very likely receive a much more favorable settlement than could be expected in the case of irreconcilable differences or no-fault. You’d see the reverse in situations where husbands who’ve had vasectomies or knew themselves to be sterile due to accident or disease deceived their wives about their ability to father children. This isn’t rocket science.

  124. Asher says:

    Look, if I were to see a man hit a woman, let’s say at a singles bar, I’m not likely to come to that woman’s aid, as long as the guy wasn’t seriously out to do permanent physical damage. Why should I?

    I see. So you see a man physically abusing a woman, decide she isn’t going to be terribly bloodied or bruised and choose to ignore the fact that an assault is taking place in front of your very eyes. Essentially, you are implying that you would refuse to call 911 or let the bartender know that there is an assault taking place.

    You choose to ignore violence and abuse because on some level, you believe that women, as a group, have it coming to them… You know, as long as there aren’t any lasting marks or broken bones or anything. Let me as you this: when will your anger and hatred toward women reach the tipping point where you move from ignoring abuse to actually perpetrating it yourself?

    Asher, you pretty much tipped your hand of cards with that comment. I rarely use insults to get my point across, but I have to say that you are a misogynistic, heartless asshole.

  125. Feed yourself whatever bullshit you want about feminism not being a political movement. Your current definition of politics requires compromise which is irrelevant in political discourse. Your demanding that people give in to what you want and are pissed off that someone else wants something different. Further, your bullshit preaching about compromise doesn’t discuss your equal compromise. What are you going to do, force abortion on me in exchange for me getting to put you in the hospital for some equally unnecessary surgery because I decide I don’t need to use the tools that society gives me to protect myself?

    You cannot get upset that people are unwilling to compromise their bodily integrity and say that we are not looking for a prosocial outcome. What you are looking to do is expand male privilege.

    My right to do what I want with my own body is NOT privilege. It is a right. Those words are not synonymous. What you are looking for is not for women to be socially responsible, but to clean up after your desire to not take responsibility for your actions. If a man has unprotected sex and winds up with a pregnant woman, he is not being socially responsible by forcing her into surgery. He would be socially responsible to use a condom. Grow up, stop trolling. I come here because I’m sick of my daily reminders of male privilege and because I want to learn how to help my niece grow up in a world where she isn’t told that she’s overreacting when a man sexually assaults her in public. I want her to grow up in a world where men don’t scream at her on the streets to give them her number, and if they do, somebody punches the guy in the face when he calls her a bitch for saying no. I want her to grow up somewhere she can demand for bodily integrity because men have a right to it, and men won’t pitch a fit because female bodily integrity means they have to, God forbid, use a condom. I don’t come here because someone speaking from a position of privilege misunderstands the difference between rights and privileges tells me I can’t do what I want with my own body.

  126. >>Awhile ago, I personally knew a young woman of 25 whose stated goal in life was to become financially independent enough to become a single mother and keep her motherhood explicitly separated from her sex/romantic life. All a woman needs to do to make this choice is one night and a willing male, not too difficult that. She was also uninterested in anything long-term, which, in large numbers, effects the overall mating and dating market. Again, I point back to the fact that when your behaviors affect others you can be sure those others will take an interest in your behaviors. This life-path is something that is available only to women, thus, female privilege.

    … Adoption? Surrogate mothers? Because I’ve got to tell you, that woman risks getting knocked up by a guy who will want to be part of that child’s life. She doesn’t have a right to keep their child to herself unless she goes the same route a man does. That’s not privilege. There’s no arguing with someone about what privilege is when they don’t understand the concept.

  127. Secondly, even single mothers who are financially secure are afforded all sorts of considerations on the job place and utilize resources, such are public schooling, for which they probably to not contribute equal to their usage.

    What, pray tell, are those “considerations on the job place”? FMLA applies equally to men and women. I am also unaware that women are taxed at a diffferent rate than men. Not according to any IRS code I’ve ever seen. You don’t have a dogwhistle, you have a locomotive whistle.

    Awhile ago, I personally knew a young woman of 25 whose stated goal in life was to become financially independent enough to become a single mother and keep her motherhood explicitly separated from her sex/romantic life.

    I don’t deny you know of such a person. How is that working out for her? I mean, the “motherhood explicitly separated from her sex/romantic life” part. She…doesn’t tell her partners that she’s a mom? Her child isn’t the least bit curious about who mom is dating? Huh. Can’t say that’s a life most folks want, or can pull off. The earning enough money to raise a child on one’s own is doable. Compartmentalizing life—not so much. Neither kids nor partners are much on being shunted off into a closet. In any case, that isn’t a life-path that is unavailable to men. I know a couple of single fathers who live something approximating that—they date, but keep the dating strictly separate from their children (or other family members). Basically, that means they don’t date much. But…they have no problems with that. To each his (or her) own.

    I also can’t say I’ve seen any evidence that men are being turned off to women as a general trend, or vice versa. Most folks are intelligent enough to realize that one asshole doesn’t translate into an entire gender being assholes.

    Sure, but the consequences of a woman lying to a man is often far greater than the reverse.

    You made the assertion, now prove it. Myself, I’m leaning toward even-steven.

    All of the arguments you are presenting will simply be met with “who cares?”, since they utterly fail to engage the interests and concerns of men.

    Hold the phone. You are trying to tell me that the argument I made, namely “avoid unwanted fatherhood via condom usage” is not an argument men are hearing? News to me. Condoms still take up a lot of real estate at the drugstore; more space than contact lens products. Someone must be buying them! I’d say condoms must still be engaging the interest and concerns of men.

    You are A) completely dodging the point of female privilege B) unwilling to engage in any sort of political compromise that is required for a well-functioning civilization.

    Let me know when you find an actual example of female privilege in this instance. Unplanned pregnancy isn’t a situation that has a “winner” and a “loser”. Even in the rare event that a woman deceives a man into getting her pregnant (say, by poking pinholes in his condoms), she isn’t “winning” anything. For one thing, in all likelihood, the relationship will not survive. For another, she’s the one who will in all likelihood be bearing the burden of financial, emotional, and the day-to-day grind of child raising if she doesn’t choose abortion. You did read the article referenced in the post, right? About the $500 in child support that covers about half of the cost of daycare? Do the math. Unplanned pregnancy is very disruptive to one’s life. Not just the man’s life.

    The political compromise already exists. It’s called “birth control”. Use it, or deal with the consequences of not using it. The political compromise that was made was that the persons who are responsible for producing a child should be the persons responsible for the upbringing of that child (provided that both parties are not willing or able to relinquish that child to a third party or parties). That’s what we have right now. If you fathered a child in my grandfather’s day, or even my father’s day, you could willfully abandon that child with no consequences to you, personally. Public anger against deadbeat parents and DNA testing to prove paternity took that away. (I guess that would be a “female privilege” in your eyes—that women don’t have “maternity testing” despite prima facie evidence who the mother is….)

    When a man willfully chooses to go without a condom, he is compromising. He is compromising his temporary desire of the physical sensation of condomless sex, for his (stated) desire to avoid fatherhood. Perhaps, asher, you can explain to me how this differs from a person who indulges his or her temporary desire to have xyz expen$ive products and ca-chings! his or her credit card to the max as opposed to his or her (stated) desire to build savings. Since you believe that the man in the above example should be able to relinquish responsibility, why not the person in the succeeding example? Or are those of us who do take responsibility just a bunch of suckers?

    that is only true where living life with honor is something that is socially promoted, which, today, it is not.

    Damn, baby, where do you live? Who raised you? And even if you weren’t fortunate enough to grow up with or around people with a code of honor….doesn’t mean you can’t freely choose to act honorably.

    (Then again….I’m talking to a man who admitted he would walk away from a woman being beaten without calling 911. Honor doesn’t enter into that equation.)

  128. @La Lubu

    Choice and options unavailable to another IS privilege. That’s it’s sine qua non.

    Damn, baby, where do you live? Who raised you? And even if you weren’t fortunate enough to grow up with or around people with a code of honor….doesn’t mean you can’t freely choose to act honorably.

    Freely choose? What is this going to turn into? A debate on autonomy of the will? Yeah, I was raised to be honorable, but the social conditions in which that sort of life thrives barely, or no longer exists. When you live in a society that, as a whole, has disavowed any moral obligations to you, then you no longer have any moral obligations to it.

    We live in a world that is slowly descending into a jungle of individuals and groups predating each other, and when the choice is whether to be the hunter or the hunted most would rather be the former.

  129. Asher, you appear to be confusing specificity with privilege. Having a womb is not a privilege. Having a penis is not a privilege. They are just features specific to particular bodies, and which broadly, but not exclusively, align with gender. Privilege is socially accorded, and doesn’t just naturally aggregate around people’s junk.

    Oh god, the man timez.

  130. Asher: One more point I’d like to make to both of you is that you are systematically alienating large numbers of men, like myself, who are genuinely interested in reconciling disparate male and female interests.

    I see zero evidence in the comments you’ve made on this thread that you have a genuine interest in anything other than men having the legal right to force women.

    Feminism is a political movement that does tend to alienate men who want the right to own and control women: I have always figured that aheterosexual man who bloviates about how much he hates feminists is a man signalling loud and clear to all women that he wants very much to live most of his life celibate and unmarried.

  131. The average sex act is, what, probably somewhere around 25 minutes, including foreplay.

    Oh, the snarkitude in my head right now. . .no, I will leave it alone.

    Then she has 9 months to decide on whether or not to have an abortion.

    No. She does NOT have “9 months to decide on whether or not to have an abortion.” You cannot get an abortion in month 9 or in month 10 for that matter (forty weeks of pregnancy–do the math). She has to know she’s pregnant–that’s usually one month of pregnancy down by the time she realizes something’s amiss, and you’re often up to week six or later once you get tested (and confirmed). That’s if you don’t spot bleed and mistake that for your period–which happens.

    The further a pregnancy progresses, the more medically and legally difficult it is to get an abortion–a late term abortion is done due to medical reasons. A woman isn’t going to be able to get an abortion at month 7, 8, or later because she’s just decided she doesn’t want to carry the pregnancy to term after all.

    And let’s not forget–it’s actually getting more and more difficult to get an abortion now. Between waiting periods, threats and attacks against clinics and staff, stalking and harassment of the women who use clinics, and the dearth of actual clinics that provide abortions in many areas (not to mention the dwindling number of medical students and doctors who know how to perform things like a D&X, which is also necessary for after a miscarriage), well, it’s not like getting stiches.

    Sure, but the consequences of a woman lying to a man is often far greater than the reverse.

    See my post upthread. When a man lies to a woman that he’s sterile, or that he really wants to have a baby with her (and this has happened), he not only mentally traumatizes her, he physically traumatizes her. Pregnancy is not a walk in the park, and it opens you up to all kinds of risks and complications. How telling that you deem the consequences “worse” if it’s the men who are targeted.

    Not only this, but women can willingly get pregnant without a partner and stick the taxpayers with the responsibility of providing the much-vaunted social safety net. Yet more female privilege.

    Or if you talk to my uber-conservative father, more male privilege, since he sees himself as picking up the tab for whiny douchebags who won’t take responsibility for their kids. Granted, I tell him it’s more complicated than that–and it’s certainly more complicated than your little rant. Has to do with systemic poverty, partners who may want to help out financially but simply cannot, etc. There’s also the pesky statistic that most people on welfare (before welfare deform in the nineties) got off within two years. It’s not like you’re living high on the hog, scare-stories about welfare queens notwithstanding.

    Again, I point back to the fact that when your behaviors affect others you can be sure those others will take an interest in your behaviors.

    Right back atcha. I ‘ve got news for you–men have been ditching their wives and pregnant girlfriends for years. It wasn’t until accurate DNA testing that this was even an issue for you all. Men got married, had kids with their wives, then dumped the wife and family for a newer model and didn’t have any contact or financial obligation. Single or married guys had their fun, then slut-shamed the girlfriend with if she got pregnant–not mine! Nope! She’s been with everyone! And she was a slut and he was a stud (and that’s still the case now, the double standard still exists). Yet I didn’t see anyone blaming male behavior on the increasing numbers of single mothers or single mothers by choice (most of whom do this via adoption or fertility treatments, not some random d00d in a bar who won’t wear a condom). I mean, seriously, you’ve got the gall to whine about how we’re hurting your fee-fees?

    One more point I’d like to make to both of you is that you are systematically alienating large numbers of men, like myself, who are genuinely interested in reconciling disparate male and female interests. Look, if I were to see a man hit a woman, let’s say at a singles bar, I’m not likely to come to that woman’s aid, as long as the guy wasn’t seriously out to do permanent physical damage. Why should I? I have seen enough equal female misbehavior to make my default position one where the two parties are reprobate and not worth the effort of protecting.

    OH NOEZ. How will I sleep at night? An entitled jackass is alienated. Oh, poor baby. A guy who tries to threaten women who are sick of male privilege with male alienation, who whines that men shouldn’t support their children if they don’t want to but that it’s terrible those kids are somehow supported by tax dollars if mom is poor (screw the kids, after all, they don’t mean thing), and would be just fine with seeing a woman getting beaten up because the bitchez are out to get him.

    You know what your last little comment shows? Not that women are driving you to being unchivalrous . It’s that you’re a worm. Here’s the huge difference between you and me: If I saw a man getting beaten up, I’d call 911. I’d do it even though I’ve been threatened, harassed and stalked by men. I’d do it because it’s the right thing to do. I’d do it because the guy getting beaten up is a person, a human being. I wouldn’t do nothing and say to myself, “Well, hey, men have been so shitty to me and other women I know that I’m not going to bother. They have so much power anyway–the vast majority of the House and Senate, most CEO’s, etc. are men– so fuck him. His attacker probably isn’t out to do any long-lasting damage.” That you would tells me that you’re deficient as a human being.

    But do go on and threaten us with alienation–as if you’ve been such a great prize; a wonderful ally who’s genuinely interested in women’s human rights. As if entitled, misogynist attitudes like yours haven’t already alienated a great swath of women already.

    I’ve seen you assert that women can get abortions up to month nine and shrug off brutality towards women–you strike me as a whinging, entitled prick who would be the same way if this was sixty years ago, or 600 years ago. Has it ever occurred to you that you only serve to make the likes of me relieved? It’s not as if I want to deal with entitled whiners like you in the dating pool.

  132. Choice and options unavailable to another IS privilege. That’s it’s sine qua non.

    No. Choices and options available to one person, but unfairly unavailable to another person, is privilege. Get it straight. It isn’t a “privilege” for a tall person to be able to reach the top shelf without getting something to stand on, versus the short person who needs the stepstool. It isn’t a “privilege” for a person with darker skin to be able to spend more time in direct sunlight without getting sunburned, versus a pale-skinned person who has to slather on the sunscreen in order to spend the same amount of time in the sun burn-free.

    And it isn’t a “privilege” to be physically capable of giving birth, versus not being physically capable of giving birth. It also isn’t a “privilege” to have the right to make decisions about one’s own body, even if those decisions impact other people. Which means: yes, a woman can choose to either end a pregnancy, or carry a pregnancy to term, because that pregnancy is taking place in her body. And if a procedure is developed that allows for cisgender men to carry pregnancies, the same right will be accorded to them as well—they can choose whether or not to get, or stay, pregnant.

    Right now, you, or any other man here that is condomphobic, has the right to a vasectomy, regardless of what your female partner may think. Why? Because it is your body. That’s not a “privilege”. Ownership of your own body—not a privilege.

    And I’m finding it painfully hard to believe that you are living in a den of thieves. Do you have friends? Do they lie to you? What about family—they’re not liars, are they? Are your neighbors breaking in to your home after you leave for work? Can you trust your co-workers not to lie, cheat and steal from you? When you drive, are other drivers obeying the traffic laws? (maybe that’s a bad example—but seriously, traffic accidents still aren’t the norm for driving.) Do people still say “please” and “thank you” and “excuse me” where you live? Still open doors for one another? Still smile and chat?

    Because frankly, assholes are not the majority of human beings. They’re just not. If you really believe that, the problem isn’t with the Rest of the World. It’s your own flawed perception. Because this: We live in a world that is slowly descending into a jungle of individuals and groups predating each other, and when the choice is whether to be the hunter or the hunted most would rather be the former. is nonsense. Therapy can help.

  133. I’ve dealt with people like Asher before on Salon’s message boards. Ignore him. He may be sincere in his beliefs and not just a troll (I tend to think trolls are people who just stir up drama for fun), but that just makes it worse. Anyone who thinks that the female reproductive capacity, which has been used *against* women to enslave them for approximately five thousand years, is a FEMALE PRIVILEGE… well, I wish I lived in the world where magic worked and I could cast a temporary genderswap spell on this guy, because seriously, he needs to live as a woman for a week or two to find out what privilege really is, and that women don’t have it.

    Now, is it true that women could, in an alternate universe, have an unfair advantage over men because reproduction takes place in our bodies and not in theirs? Sure, in the quantum parallel universe where men never used their physical size and their greater tendency to violence and the fact that female reproduction is so very very dangerous and disabling to women to overpower women and establish worldwide dominance. Absolutely, the sentient tomcats who actually wish they could have a relationship with their sentient kittens could be screwed over by the fact that sentient queen cats, like non-sentient queen cats, don’t need male involvement for any aspect of kitten-raising and consider males dangerous unless they know them very very well.

    But in THIS universe, in this reality, with this sentient species, Asher’s point that the ability to go out, get a willing man to fuck you, and get yourself condemned to nine months of hell for the purpose of having a kid that you don’t want said man to be involved with, and because he was willing to fuck you without knowing you and without condoms and because you are willing to endure this hell and then pay for all the child-rearing yourself, that’s your PRIVILEGE… goddamn, but that’s like saying that military people are privileged because by being willing to go to war and get killed, they can actually get the government to pay for their college education. Did you miss the part about maybe dying in a war? Or, in the case of the woman who gets herself knocked up, did you miss the part where the man was ready, willing and able to fuck a woman he didn’t know without a condom, and the woman endured tremendous physical hardship and then had to pay for the baby *and* do all the work of child rearing herself? If that’s a fucking privilege, cut out my uterus and give me a dick, because I’d sure love to suffer from other people’s privilege to go through hell without my knowledge after I’ve enjoyed a consequence-free night of pleasure with them.

    Yes, a woman can get herself knocked up, suffer all the physical consequences of it, and pay for it all by herself, and keep the man from any involvement, and the only way a man can protect himself from this… is to not have condom-free sex with women he doesn’t know and trust. That’s sure a privilege. Oh, jesus christ. Meanwhile, men can *rape* women, who can end up being forced to endure all the physical consequences of a pregnancy against their will, and in fact probably every human being on a planet is descended from rape at some point, given that historically a woman’s consent was considered irrelevant, and women were given to men as “wives”, meaning property, by their families, often without their own wishes being considered.

    I wish we lived in a world where men were appropriately concerned about the possibility that they’d be fathering a child without wishing to. Then men might be a fraction as careful about who they have sex with and when as women have had to be throughout history, and maybe then they wouldn’t be such entitled douchebags about sex.

  134. This really could have done without the trans (ha ha ha, *he* could just get an abortion…oh wait no uterus!) joke.

    1. Jayinchiago, I didn’t actually mean that as I joke. I meant it literally — some men have gotten abortions, because some men do have uteruses and can get pregnant. It’s obvious from this article that the guy is cis. So no, he is not in the class of men who can get an abortion. Apologies if it came off as an anti-trans joke; I meant exactly what it said, not as a “ha ha you don’t have a uterus!” anti-trans joke.

  135. This really could have done without the trans (ha ha ha, *he* could just get an abortion…oh wait no uterus!) joke.

    jayinchicago, are you referring to my comment on #155? Because I did not mean that as a joke, and specifically used the term cisgender. I was reacting to the whining claim of some men in this conversation to the effect of ‘women don’t have to have the cooperation of a male partner to have a child; we have to have a willing partner (or surrogate).’ Well, someday medical science may have an answer to cisgender men who do want to carry a child in their own bodies via a hormone cocktail and abdominal implantation. It’s highly unlikely that such a man would want an abortion, but for argument’s sake, he would still have the right to have one.

    For all of asher and The Flash’s whining about (cisgender) women having the “privilege” of childbirth, I seriously doubt either one of them are going to be lining up at the doctor’s office for an abdominal implantation of a fertilized embryo, so they can experience pregnancy for themselves. Every. single. cisgender. man. I know has said the same thing in regards to pregnancy: “I sure am glad I don’t have to do that shit!!”

    I do apologize to you and any other transgendered person who read that as a “joke” or “gotcha”; I hoped to avoid any misunderstanding by specifying cisgender men. It has been my experience that cisgender men (by and large) do not view pregnancy as a privilege, but as something to fear.

  136. The Flash, if you knew the first thing about specific performance, you’d know that specific performance involving labor is highly disfavored. It’s usually reserved for stuff like delivery of goods/real property, etc. rather than liquidated damages.

    And that’s *with* an explicit contract. You really think you’re going to get specific performance with what you may be imagining is the implied contract of, what I don’t even know. A sexual contract? Good luck with that, too.

    Fact is, the last clear chance — to use a legal doctrine that might actually, you know, make sense here — for a man to avoid becoming a father is at the point of vaginal intercourse. His best method for doing so is to wear a condom. If he chooses sensation over protection, or he chooses to rely on the woman’s representations that she’s infertile/on bc/what have you, he assumes the risk (another apt legal concept!) of whatever may follow.

    And whatever may follow? Why, once he gives her his sperm, she may decide to do something with it he doesn’t like.

    A woman’s choices are different because of biology. She may assume the risk of becoming pregnant when she has sex (with or without protection, because no bc method is 100% reliable), but her last clear chance to avoid giving birth occurs later, during the pregnancy. And she may not wish to avoid it (or, depending on where she lives/how poor she is/other factors, she may not be ABLE to avoid it).

    As for this:

    Two things never to say before sex (if you really want to have sex):

    1) “I know you say you are on the pill, but I do not trust you so I am going to wear a condom anyway.”
    2) “I know you say you are on the pill and I completely believe you, but I am going to diminish my own sexual pleasure by wearing a condom because I want to actualize my own reproductive autonomy.”

    You know, dude, if you can’t have that conversation with your partner before you get your clothes off, you really have no business having sex. Grown-ups can have the talk. Cripes, it should be standard.

    As for those who think that a woman can’t give up a child for adoption without the father’s consent, you should google “safe haven laws.” Most states have them in order to prevent infanticide and, usually, when the parent drops off the child at a safe haven, it is “no questions asked.”

    The purpose of those laws is to prevent Dumpster babies when scared young girls give birth without anyone knowing and freak out, doofus. Though when one of the Plains states (I want to say Nebraska or one of the Dakotas) recently had a broadly-worded one, people were dropping off their teenaged kids. One man brought in 7 or 8 kids.

  137. “Well, someday medical science may have an answer to cisgender men who do want to carry a child in their own bodies via a hormone cocktail and abdominal implantation. It’s highly unlikely that such a man would want an abortion, but for argument’s sake, he would still have the right to have one.”

    A cisgender man trying to carry a child to term would almost assuredly face significant medical risks throughout the pregnancy and could face a mortal threat at any time. It’s pretty much the same deal as getting a woman through a non-tubal ectopic pregnancy, with more obstacles–extremely high risk. So yeah, plenty of reasons a cis man in that situation might decide to terminate, even though he wants to bear a child.

  138. If you buy an industrial solvent from a company that doesn’t warn you it will burn your hands, it’s not your fault for neglecting to use gloves. You can sue them. Sure, you COULD wear gloves. You know that IF the company was being dishonest, it would be a good idea. But if you trust them, why would you take extra precautions for no reason? If they claim to be taking responsibility, it’s their fault if something goes wrong, and you have legal recourse against them.

    If a guy pokes a hole in his condom, and tells the woman he’s with she doesn’t need to use birth control, is it her fault if she doesn’t take the pill? No! That’s what the other post you linked to was about. If a guy feigns responsibility, he’s responsible for the consequences. If a woman feigns responsibility… the guy’s responsible for the consequences?

    And who cares how common an occurrence it is? Cannibalism is rare, but there are still laws in place to deal with it.

    “No, it’s not “fair” that some men don’t get to decide whether or not to have a baby when their female partner gets pregnant. It’s also not fair that some women have to push something the size of a football out a hole the size of pencil. Welcome to biology. You don’t see us suing over it.”

    Uh, yeah, that’s because the pain of child birth isn’t the result of deliberate deception and manipulation by a malicious individual. This argument amounts to, “Well, women suffer too, so if one of them fucks you over, too bad.”

    “What men like Matt want isn’t reproductive rights; they want reproductive veto rights over someone else’s body. Or they at least want to be able to get out of having to pay for a child once it’s born, because they were tricked into having unprotected sex.”

    Those are two completely different things. Matt never said anything about forcing her to have an abortion. He doesn’t seem to have any concern over reproductive rights. He just doesn’t want to be forced to pay a hefty monthly fee for something he was tricked into. He didn’t know the sex was unprotected, since the woman told him she was using protection, not to mention INFERTILE. How neurotic does a guy have to be to say, “Well, infertility combined with chemical contraceptives are no safeguard against pregnancy, but a thin piece of latex is.” And what if she really had been infertile? How insulting and hurtful would it be for him to say, “Yeah honey, but what if you’re stupid or lying? I think I’ll wear a condom, because I don’t trust you.” How could that be a healthy relationship?

    A woman should obviously, indisputably, have the right to decide what to do with her body. That doesn’t mean a man should be forced to financially support her, regardless of any manipulation or dishonesty on her part.

    1. The whole “tricked into fatherhood” thing is hard to prove, Robin. What if she truly believed that she was infertile because that’s what she had been told by a medical professional? If she thought she could never have children, then finds herself pregnant after all, it’s not unreasonable behaviour to decide to complete the pregnancy, nor is it manipulative. She may well have had plans for a childless life that she has to put on hold now as well – it could just be about managing the unexpected/unplanned. How is he going to prove that he was “tricked”?

      In any case, it is in society’s best interests for the health and productivity of its future citizens for both biological parents to be financially responsible for providing food, clothing and shelter for any offspring, no matter how that offspring is conceived, once it has been born. Unless both parents are willing to relinquish the child for adoption, then both parents are required to pay what they can to support the child. Child support is for the child’s expenses, not gravy money for the custodial parent, and typically is not enough to cover the full costs of raising a child anyway, so there simply is not this free ride that you are imagining.

  139. Also children do NOT have a right to their biological parents’ love, money, attention or anything else.

    tigtog’s reply accords with my own limited understanding of family law. Unless the child is given up by both parents for adoption with a few exceptions, both parents are legally and customarily obligated to at an extreme bare minimum provide minimal parental attention and financially support their child until they are 18. Personally, I feel this bar is set way too low….

    Neglecting to fulfill this obligation does not only make one a bad parent and a ginormous asshole, but also a lawbreaker who deserves any and all possible legal sanctions thrown at him/her. Judges do not look kindly upon deadbeat parents….or neglectful ones.

    As far as I am concerned, any child who has had a parent with the attitudes of not feeling any obligation to provide love, attention, money, and anything else decent parents provide to their children to the extent exhibited by a few commentators here is well within his/her rights to publish denunciations of said parent in question and forever absolved of any responsibility to care for said parent in his/her senior years….

  140. Robin said “[Matt] doesn’t seem to have any concern over reproductive rights. He just doesn’t want to be forced to pay a hefty monthly fee for something he was tricked into.”

    ***I’d like to make this VERY clear***

    Matt Dubay wasn’t tricked by Wells, nor does he claim in court he was tricked. Because he wasn’t – she was told she couldn’t get pregnant and was on The PIll to boot(either for back up or other reasons). But Matt continues to deny he should have worn a condom in interviews because apparently it was all on her and mistakes never happen. And when mistakes do happen, apparently men are entitled to leave to all for women to shoulder.

  141. My husband has an ex who aborted their ‘oops’ when they were both 18. Her life hasn’t turned out how she imagined (she is in major debt, single, 31, unemployed and just had to move back home to her parents). She actually told him flat out, in an otherwise congratulatory email regarding his and my engagement, that she wished she’d kept it because she knows he is a stand-up guy and he’d be looking after her now, and then her life wouldn’t be such a mess. So I know that mentality is out there, it was straight from the horse’s mouth.

    However, here’s a woman who freely admits she has every incentive to ‘oops’ a man. But she hasn’t. She told my husband when he called to tell her about his engagement (so she wouldn’t find out on FB), that she just spent the last 2 years dating a guy who had lots of money and she didn’t ‘oops’ him, but she easily could have. And since it turned out he was married with kids and had made her the other woman, he couldn’t even call her out for dishonesty. So she had the opportunity and didn’t take it.

    I think there’s a huge jump from thinking about such an enormous deceit and dangerous gamble to actually doing it. We’ve all thought or joked about doing naughty or even wicked things in our time, but it doesn’t mean we do.

  142. It just occurred to me after reading half the comments here that I am currently on antibiotics. This year is the first time in my life I’ve ever been relying solely on the Pill as I never trusted it alone before marrying last May, I used condoms religiously. Yet I just pointed out to my husband that all the sex we’ve had for the last week has been unprotected.

    He knew I was on antibiotics. We both know they meddle with the Pill. We both have Ivy League degrees. We have a combined IQ around 300. My sister just had a baby so we’ve been talking about when we’ll have our own and agreed to wait a couple of years. Prior to marriage we talked about b/c failure and agreed we would not abort (barring medical necessity), so we both know that one slip equals parenthood for us.

    Yet, until I read this, neither of us clicked at all that we might have an issue this week. Which just goes to show, you can be about as smart and informed and mutually communicative as it is possible for a pair of laypeople to be on this issue and still drop the ball.

    Oops.

  143. One more teensy little point.

    This is not about the woman.

    IT IS ABOUT THE CHILD.

    The child had absolutely no choice. You do not punish it for the poor judgment or worse fortune of the parents. Cutting it off just because you’re having a tantrum about how it came into the world exposes it to massvely increased chances of delinquency, abuse, under-achievement, poverty, and early death.

    If you are any sort of human at all you do not cut off your child’s nose to spite your co-parent’s face. It’s that simple.

  144. I suppose yet another reason for me to have condoms be my primary form of birth control would be that lovers won’t have any leverage to tell me I’m a conniving succubus out to bilk them of child support money, as I’d say from the getgo, “Oy. I’m not on the pill. Wrap it up plzkthnx. Or don’t do me. Your choice.”

  145. Matt Dubay wasn’t tricked by Wells, nor does he claim in court he was tricked. Because he wasn’t – she was told she couldn’t get pregnant and was on The PIll to boot (either for back up or other reasons). But Matt continues to deny he should have worn a condom in interviews because apparently it was all on her and mistakes never happen. And when mistakes do happen, apparently men are entitled to leave to all for women to shoulder.

    Reposted for emphasis. (And he shouldn’t have had to wear a condom because it doesn’t feel as good! And women should only get pregnant on a man’s say-so! And if she’s pregnant and wants an abortion she’s a totes man-hating murderer.)

    I love how a woman who gets pregnant is automatically lying about using BC. Guess what else? Thanks to the Stupak amendment, access to abortion could be be MORE DIFFICULT to get. Where are these guys now?

  146. The Flash – unless you can prove the child committed fraud, or was complicit in the fraud with the mother, then whether you should pay child support to keep the baby alive and fed is nothing to do with whether the mother is a horrible lying bitch. So you’d have to prove it’s possible to collaborate in a crime before existing.

    I agree that if you can prove the mother lied about that, that she’s not a very nice person and perhaps a questionable parent. In such an instance, where the father DID use barrier protection and it was either sabotaged or didn’t work (ie he’s not feckless too), I would suggest the father might be a better candidate for first dibs on custody. Then the mother can pay child support and the father can live with the baby. That would be totally fair.

  147. Asher – “Secondly, even single mothers who are financially secure are afforded all sorts of considerations on the job place and utilize resources, such are public schooling, for which they probably to not contribute equal to their usage.”

    No, CHILDREN are afforded schooling. The reason being that letting them starve in the gutter is, generally speaking, not as cost-effective as bunging a minimal safety net their way. Because a literate population commits less crime, endures less poverty, and pays more tax.

    That said I agree that if the state did not offer support for more than 1 child a head (so a couple can have 2 with some support and any additional at their own cost), that the number of teen and unwed pregnancies continued through to birth would plummet, because more people would have abortions. The number of pregnancies would also go down a bit. But not because everyone would start abstaining – clearly lack of child support never caused this outcome historically – or because women who bothered already to go on the Pill (inherently responsible people who are willing to risk side effects to protect against unwanted motherhood) would take it more diligently (they’re self-selecting for diligent people). It’d be because of the vast swathes of less educated people for whom having a baby is no worse a choice than anything else they’ve got in their life might start using condoms, as the balance of choice would shift against having a baby. However that still leaves the problem of the fact that the baby is the one who ends up starving and miserable, and who really isn’t to blame.

    One thing that would be good for both justice and reducing the burden of babies without proper support would be to give half of state support and half of parental leave to the father, transferable with the agreement of both parents. Then men will face just the same problem as women of childbearing age at hiring time, while fathers will have the same protection as mothers at firing time. Plus it would render single motherhood much more unattractive. But again, for those cases where the father uses his half of the leave to go on a jaunt around the world and the mother has to go back to work and pay f/t childcare, again, there’s the starving babies issue.

    The balance is not between men’s rights and women’s rights, it’s between disincentivising socially irresponsible behavior by not paying for it, and punishing children for the idiocy of their parents.

  148. Uh, yeah, that’s because the pain of child birth isn’t the result of deliberate deception and manipulation by a malicious individual.

    Did you miss the link about the study of men who sabotaged their partners’ birth control?

  149. @ Colette: I didn’t know that part, but yeah, in that light he doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on

    @Lizzie: You make a good point about the necessity of care for the child. I guess at the least, financial support is necessary, even if the pretense was false.

    @Sheelzebub: I did see that link. In fact, I referenced it in my post. But Jill was talking about the general pain of childbirth as determined by biology, not in specific cases of deception.

Comments are currently closed.