TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

55

CMVThanks, birth control day spawned a series of tweets by women espousing why they're thankful for birth control. These exact same reasons justify enabling men to terminate paternal rights and support obligations (also known as "male abortion" or "paper abortion") CMV. (self.PurplePillDebate)

submitted by whatyoucallaflip

Accordingly, until such a provision is made, any claims that we are living in, or aspiring to live in, an equal society are self-serving shams.

This is especially true in light of how important having unprotected sex is to living a fulfilled life (if it were not, then women wouldn't be so extremely thankful for birth control as illustrated in the examples below, porn wouldn't be a billion dollar industry, etc.)

Some beautiful sentiments were expressed. Of course the implied but unstated background in each of these is that birth control frees the speaker to enjoy the pleasures of unprotected sex without facing the subsequent consequences of having a child before they are ready.

For example:

Stated: "birth control has meant I can focus on my education and pursue my career on my own terms" Implied: having a baby would interfere with my education and pursuing my career; birth control lets me.enjoy unprotected sex without worrying about compromising my education or career What about: men who want to have unprotected sex without worrying about compromising their education or career?

Stated: "The only babies I'm having this szn are food babies" Implied: birth control lets me have unprotected sex without worrying about the burden of having a child What about: men being able to have sex while ensuring that the only babies they're having this szn are food babies?

And so on.

This is not merely.hypothetical. It's been proposed in such equality-loving enclaves as Sweden. I've made arguments that have reduced fathers' child support obligations by up to 6000% in some of the most mother-friendly courts in the world, highlighting the injustices in the current framework. I plan to devote considerable time and resources to ensure that this vision becomes a reality, and regardless, the law is undoubtedly going to change sooner or later.


[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✑️🐈✑️ the purring jew 22 points23 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

i am going to attempt to explain this again

in the 90s the MEN who ran the US wanted an "end to welfare". up until that time single moms were just given welfare without much enforcement on fathers or attempts to garnish them. the ONLY way Clinton was able to "end welfare as we know it" was to beef up all of the child support enforcement systems. food stamps was devolved ot the states as TANF, and in ORDER TO GET TANF A SINGLE MOTHER MUST NAME A FATHER or make a good faith effort to locate him. this is because the STATE is going to be PAYING FOR THAT MANS CHILD TO EAT

it was MEN who wanted this. MEN (conservative men) who beat the "Deadbeat father" drum to get the fathers of children to be responsible for them financially. WHITE men were (perceived to be)paying for welfare for millions of BLACK mens babies and they wanted the BLACK men to pay (this was before the rise in white OOW births)

NOT FEMINISM. FEMINISM wanted women FREED from the fathers of their children with government largesse

you all act like if we had male paper abortion tomorrow that the "government" or "we" were going to just end welfare, food stamps and SCHIP etc too overnight so that only the mothers who had the OOW would be responsible for them. thats NOT what would happen, what would realisticlaly happen thenm is a return to the Welfare Queen days of women squashing out bastards on the governments dime

are you all retarded? why do you think it is better for welfare to feed poor womens babies on YOUR DIMES rather than going after that men who fathered those babies for a contribution? do you know how terrible it was for everyone? do you beleive you are going to get hard workign responsible xSTJ fatherss and husband to vote to let black and hispanic men off the child support hook and feed their babies again? like do you think systemically at all?

[–][deleted]  (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✑️🐈✑️ the purring jew 15 points16 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

We're making a new world. That not happening is part of the package.

who is "We"? do you have a mouse in your pocket?

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✑️🐈✑️ the purring jew 8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

really? how do you see this occuring?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It already is

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/10/02/politics/trump-scary-time-for-young-men-metoo/index.html

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✑️🐈✑️ the purring jew 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

OK there you go thank you

[–]question49462 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

So your perfect world is starving children?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

They're already starving. my perfect world doesn't endure pretending to solve problems that no one really cares about solving as an unfair obstacle to my equal pursuit of pleasure

[–]Mariko2000 -2 points-1 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

in the 90s the MEN who ran the US

You mean those men who were elected to serve limited terms in office by a majority-female electorate?

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✑️🐈✑️ the purring jew 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I would have to see the numbers on that

[–]Mariko2000 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Are you looking for verification that there are more eligible women voters in the US? Do you want census data?

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✑️🐈✑️ the purring jew 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

um, im looking for verification of what YOU typed--that:

those men who were elected to serve limited terms in office by a majority-female electorate?

where the majority of ACTUAL voting voters who voted in the elections of the 90s female?

non voting members of the "electorate" dont matter as to who wins

[–]Mariko2000 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

where the majority of ACTUAL voting voters who voted in the elections of the 90s female?

Yes. Is this really a surprise to you? Are you from the US?

https://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p20-504.pdf

non voting members of the "electorate" dont matter as to who wins

For starters, both 'ACTUAL' and eligible voters have been majority female for generations. That said, your assertion doesn't make any sense. Choosing not to vote is as much an exercise of voting power as choosing to vote.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✑️🐈✑️ the purring jew 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

yes i did not know that, thank you

[–]Mariko2000 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No problemo

[–]Eartherry 11 points12 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Men seem to think equality is one group achieving something having to be equally distributed to everyone. No, equality is being free to create your own achievements, but you still have to do it yourself, just like the achievers did.

This should be advertising to men of all of the benefits they could be having if they had their own birth control that was as effective as women's. This should be a wakeup call for men to start demanding it, like women did. Men should start funding it en masse, like women did. Men should be lining up to test the side-effects of the first batches, like women did.

But until then, men are still in the same position they've been in since those times. At least now they're not going to be forced to marry the women they knock up at gunpoint.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

Nah women whine for legal changes too. Men have never down that. We're starting now.

[–]Eartherry 7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You're right. Men's tactic has always been to commit acts of violence until laws change in their favor, or at least to the detriment of those they don't like. You'd think that after so long of seeing women running circles around them they'd figure out that doesn't work.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're right. Men's tactic has always been to commit acts of violence until laws change in their favor, or at least to the detriment of those they don't like. You'd think that after so long of seeing women running circles around them they'd figure out that doesn't work.

No argument there. Whining is way easier and way less work than violence. Hooray current year.

[–]Here4thebeer3232No Pill 5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Were... were you asleep in history class as well as sex ed?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Why don't you enlighten me oh awakened one

[–]Here4thebeer3232No Pill 7 points8 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Men have been fighting for their legal rights for centuries. Most rights were given to men first, women only got them later after they fought specifically for them.

Some US based examples for legal rights would include: the Revolutionary War (ensuring land owning white men had their own government), the Coal wars (ensuring safer work and fair pay to men working coal fields), the Civil War (which ensured all men the ability to vote regardless of race), the entire LGBT movement (fighting for the rights of gay men), BLM (fighting for the rights of black men), the fight for prison reform (which mostly affects men), fighting to help the homeless (which is mostly men), etc.

All of these were large scale battles (both violent and non violent) that resulted in greater rights and empowerment for men. Just because no one is seriously fighting for a paper abortion does not mean men have not had battles fought for/by men.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Meh...whether it's time to fight for the first time or time to fight again, it's time to fight

[–]Here4thebeer3232No Pill 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

You're gonna have to do better to convince men to fight for your cause then. Cause so far your argument seems to be is you want to fuck women bareback without consequence, and are willing to let children starve as a result. No one will be fighting en mass for that.

We would all be much better off fighting for more funding for Male BC. Men need more options. That is a real goal that benefits everyone. Plus you can still fuck bareback.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

OK, thats fair. But if male BC ends up being factually impossible, remember this...it's not you I need to convince (you meaning the segment of societal opinion you represent). There are already some women who support this. Accordingly, the only part left is to convince men to vote their self interest. Get 90% of men plus 10% of women and the game's over.

[–]Here4thebeer3232No Pill 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Male birth control is close. They had a major breakthrough just last year. Some minor tweaks to fix but it's been proven. We will probably see it in our lifetimes.

Which men? Like women men are not a hivemind that all think the same. The conservatives (which are a big block in america) will not be okay with an expanded welfare state. And no one will be okay with the "let the bastards starve" approach. Besides, we have bigger problems to worry about. I'm not sure if you've been paying attention but there is a serious push fo challenge the legality of abortion (in Alabama, Ohio, and West Virginia). How well does this fight of yours hold up if abortion is outlawed?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Besides, we have bigger problems to worry about. I'm not sure if you've been paying attention but there is a serious push fo challenge the legality of abortion (in Alabama, Ohio, and West Virginia). How well does this fight of yours hold up if abortion is outlawed?

Wouldn't hold up at all. That's why men and women would ideally ally to guarantee full access to abortion-abortion and paper abortion. That kind of critical mass would solve everything, but of course most of the women passionate about female abortion are not the target audience for a paper abortion campaign. C'est la vie.

And no one will be okay with the "let the bastards starve"

1 in 5 American children go hungry--we're already ok with letting the bastards starve. Even under this new regime it'll be the same number of bastards starving (surely not every man will opt out of supporting his child--and there will be a great deal of overlap between men who can't afford to support anyway and men who would opt out under the new law, only difference being they wouldn't be jailed for their inability to make payments, which happens alarmingly frequently).

So in short, net starving bastards won't really fluctuate that much.

The campaign will have to highlight this aa well as the fact that there's clearly nothing we can do about this problem so we may as well vote our own selfish interests. Trying to use government mechanisms to keep the bastards fed has clearly failed.

Male birth control is close. They had a major breakthrough just last year. Some minor tweaks to fix but it's been proven. We will probably see it in our lifetimes.

Not soon enough. I ain't tryna be 50 before parity is achieved. I bet this can happen way faster. And male birth control, if it arises, will anyways make the law change moot, because there will understandably be a counterbacklash that reverts us back to where we started if men have access to that tool to achieve parity.

Which men? Like women men are not a hivemind that all think the same.

Except that fucking is men's highest priority. Not 100% of men, but a high enough percentage to win an election. Don't believe me? Look at all the stupid shit men do for pussy. How much power and fame and wealth they're willing to put at risk. All that's needed is to make them feel okay about voting for what they truly desire. And do you know something? The blueprint for doing that, for getting men to vote their heart in the face of being shamed for their views, has already been drawn up by one Donald J. Trump. Deep down we all wanna be able to (consensually of course) grab em by the pussy. The momentum around men finally feeling secure in voting for policies and ideologies that benefit them is palpable.

[–]Venicedreaming 32 points33 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

You’re gonna need a whole lot more reasons other than β€œit feels good” to justify not wanting to use a condom to argue anything legally related. Women have birth control, men have condoms, use it if you don’t want to knock up chicks. It’s all about personal responsibility, people who have unwanted kids have non of my sympathies. I would never trust any chick to say she’s under birth control to forgo a condom, but I also would never have unprotected sex with strangers. You want to escape responsibility of creating a whole new human just because β€œit feels good”. Yah, pass, pay for your bastards because I don’t wanna with my tax dollars.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

If you can’t even properly pull out, then you don’t have my sympathies either. Pulling out is super easy. You know when you’re going to cum. Pull out before that happens.

Don’t give me that β€œpre cum can get you pregnant too” bullshit. Only sperm can get you pregnant. Sometimes sperm gets stuck in your urethra after you cum and pre cum can cause it to leak out, but taking a piss clears out any sperm caught in your urethra, so as long as you piss once sometime before sex and you pull out before you cum, you will not get anybody pregnant.

[–]legaladvicequest 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Had no babies using only withdrawal and rhythm method for 15 months. Swapped to IUD and got pregnant. I've got the most interesting ultrasound pic with both a pregnancy and an IUD in the shot. Dudes have gotta realize they're half responsible for anything that happens, and if I'm the only one using birth control then they're 100% responsible if I get pregnant. Between two adults using the individual birth control available to them properly, we should never have a problem.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

So what does unprotected MEAN??? Against diseases or pregnancy? Or both? Though the point is does this include diseases or not πŸ˜„

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It means pregnancy.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

orly?

[–][deleted]  (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Venicedreaming 5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

That’s a whole different debate. In this country we are still debating whether women should be able to abort or not. As to whether the father should pay, yah, get in line behind the abortion issue

[–][deleted]  (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]  (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Be civil.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

No dumbass, you can’t get out of paying

Why, because you say so?

Your issue will never see the light of court until abortion is solved and final

How about a legislature. How about a constitutional amendment. Not that this should happen but we could actually just give men paper abortions and make women getting abortion-abortions illegal. That's democracy.

[–]Venicedreaming 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Nope, not gonna even see the light of court until abortion debate is over. That’s your best path for your issue platform. You can talk shit all day on Reddit and the fact remains unchanged

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It terms of insisted practicality it's also possible that the abortion debate will never resolve and welfare is adjusted in spite of that.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok, so why do you believe it's the case that

Nope, not gonna even see the light of court until abortion debate is over.

And that it needs to see the "light of court" at all to be enacted as a law?

[–]CainPrice 9 points10 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

This is more of a legal issue than a fairness/justice issue.

The reason women can abort pregnancies but men can't financially abort children they didn't want is physical integrity. A woman gets pregnant, a woman carries a pregnancy to term, a woman undergoes an abortion procedure. These are physically invasive things her body undergoes. Other people can't force her to do or not do something physically invasive.

That's really it.

"I shouldn't have to pay child support because she could have had a physically invasive surgical procedure" doesn't hold water when it's someone else's body undergoing something physically invasive.

A person's right to physical integrity is more important than another person's right to money. That's why assault is a more serious crime than burglary.

That's the legal issue. Physical integrity (e.g., deciding whether or not to abort or carry to term) trumps financial rights.

The legal issue isn't about fairness or feminism or justice or equal reproductive rights. This has been a fairly constant and complex struggle for the judicial system, actually. Because we're comparing apples to oranges. And in the end, it was decided that we can't compare physical integrity to reproductive choice. The first is bigger than the second, so a woman's physical integrity trumps a man's reproductive choice. I'm not saying that's completely fair or right. Just that this is the legal answer, and no amount of fairness or equality regarding reproductive rights is going to trump physical integrity.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

This is more of a legal issue than a fairness/justice issue.

Laws are made by people. They can be changed by people.

The reason women can abort pregnancies but men can't financially abort children they didn't want is physical integrity.

She'd still have physical integrity. She can choose to have the child and, if the man won't participate, to raise the child alone.

A woman gets pregnant, a woman carries a pregnancy to term, a woman undergoes an abortion procedure. These are physically invasive things her body undergoes. Other people can't force her to do or not do something physically invasive.

That's really it.

No one's forcing anything. Just as she should be free to keep the child (or not) the man should be free to not pay for it (or do).

"I shouldn't have to pay child support because she could have had a physically invasive surgical procedure" doesn't hold water when it's someone else's body undergoing something physically invasive.

Or she won't undergo it. She can raise the child however she can on her own . If this were the default regime women would enter into sex (or perhaps just not have sex, or only have sex with committed partners), knowing that's the regime, and would accordingly accept the risk allocated to them. This is not physical integrity violation. It's equitable risk reallocation.

[–]CainPrice 6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Like I said, this isn't about fairness. I know it's unfair. Everyone knows it's unfair.

But the legal decision to date is that telling a woman, essentially: "If you refrain from having a physically invasive surgical procedure, you will be inflicted with the financial hardship of raising a child on your own" constitutes an infringement of her right to physical integrity.

It's the same line of legal reasoning why it was held unconstitutional for a pregnant married woman to be required to tell her husband before having an abortion. If he were to threaten divorce, abuse, financial hardship, and the like, it would infringe her right to physical integrity because she could be coerced into a decision she didn't want to make.

It's all about the woman's body. There was this string of legal cases after Roe and its progeny in the US regarding what to do with frozen embryos from IVF couples after a divorce, and in nearly every single one of those cases, the man's wishes were 100% equal to the woman's. In fact, if he didn't want the kid, his wishes governed. If he didn't want those embryos implanted, his reproductive wishes would prevent her from using the embryos to have a kid, even though she's the woman.

Once a woman is pregnant, trying to use money to coerce her into having or not having a baby legally counts as infringing her physical integrity. It's not fair to men. Everyone knows it. Even the courts know it. But a bunch of judges thought long and hard on this and decided that a woman's right to exercise control over her physical body is more important than male reproductive choice or financial rights.

It's not about fairness. It's about assault being more serious than burglary.

The legal standard is that it's okay to steal your money if it keeps you from coercing a woman to consent to a physical invasion she doesn't want, which is akin to assault.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Like I said, this isn't about fairness. I know it's unfair. Everyone knows it's unfair.

But the legal decision to date

Can be altered through legislation and upheld by Justice Kavanaugh. Precedents can be overturned and constitutions can be amended. Why do you think so many evangelicals held their nose and voted for Trump. Even Supreme Court rulings aren't eternal.

[–]CainPrice 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I wouldn't hold your breath for any kind of political change. The decisions you hate so much were not made lightly, nor were they made by crazed liberals out to reward women with your cash. This already -was- a careful and deliberate legal process. It wasn't some roughshod political craziness. A second careful and deliberate legal process about the same thing - now facing years of the current legal precedent being the status quo - is even -less- likely to turn out the way you want things. Not more.

In fact, encouraging paternal responsibility was a strong conservative value back in the day - make Dad pay instead of the taxpayer.

The US has a really shitty two-party system. Liberal people want to give single mothers money from the evil males who burdened them with children. Conservative people want Dad to pay instead of the general taxpayer.

I wouldn't count on any kind of libertarian capitalist uprising where individual responsibility is hoisted on to the general populace any time soon.

You're a cool dude with a brain and a college degree, but most of the population isn't. Politicians don't care about you. They care about mass voting blocks. And mass voting blocks don't care about individual responsibility. They care about abortions, gays, guns, and Jesus. People who give a shit about male reproductive rights on some kind of academic ideological level are a fringe minority of internet wackos.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't count on any kind of libertarian capitalist uprising where individual responsibility is hoisted on to the general populace any time soon.

We elected President Trump. Nothing's off the table

People who give a shit about male reproductive rights on some kind of academic ideological level are a fringe minority of internet wackos.

But guys who see the injustice of the current child support system, that group is growing every day. They may not all have MRA flairs (or even use Reddit) but they have a pulse and they know something is rotten in Denmark . Some of them are even in jail because they couldn't afford to pay. Dat felon vote

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (37 children) | Copy Link

Ignoring your wierd condom issue... when a woman uses birth control you already derive exactly the same benefits she does... but without the side-effects.

[–]Eartherry 15 points16 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

No, the man is acting recklessly. He's having unprotected sex. The woman isn't, she's already ensured she's protected herself. Until men have birth control methods as secure as women do, and as long as he knows none are currently available, he doesn't have the right to argue that nothing negative should come from what amounts to misbehavior.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

She's ensured she's protected against unwanted pregnancy, which is one risk of sex. Reckless unprotected sex is reckless. Not all unprotected sex is reckless.

If a woman has sex with a guy and her actions ensure she doesn't get pregnant, then that guy benefits the same way the woman does.

[–]question49462 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I got pregnant with an IUD. Wish my husband had a thought for his own responsibility in the matter.

[–]Eartherry -1 points0 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

She's ensured she's protected against unwanted pregnancy, which is one risk of sex.

It's the risk we're talking about.

Not all unprotected sex is reckless.

Yes it is. One not ensuring that they are protected is being reckless. A woman getting pregnant while on birth control is never reckless, it was an accident. Accidents happen. A man who knows he has no protection and has sex anyway is being reckless.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

It's not reckless for LTR couples to decide to rely on non-condom methods.

[–]Eartherry 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It is, but usually any unexpected children end up bearing the brunt of their parent's recklessness.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh well

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

the IUD life is the best. nut where you want when you want absolutely no worries

[–]SizzleFrazz 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol I’m a nanny to a 3 year old girl who was conceived while on the IUD.

[–]Hayasaka-chan 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

My godmother didn't know her IUD had "migrated" out of get uterus (years later they still haven't found it) until she came up pregnant. Except she was only kind of pregnant - she had a full molar pregnancy and had to get through chemo to get her body to stop producing pregnancy hormones. Things you just leave in your body like that scare the hell out of me.

Before I found out I was interfile I was all aboard the birth control pills+ condom train. Neither my husband or myself wanted to leave anything to chance before we were ready.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

the vasectomy life is even better. :P

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You’re being overly paranoid. It’s super easy to not get a women pregnant when you have unprotected sex. There’s really only a risk if you don’t know what you’re doing.

First of all, pulling out is super easy. You know when you’re going to cum, so you just have to pull out before you even begin to cum. If you pull out as you’re having an orgasm, then you did it wrong, and that’s how people get pregnant.

Second of all, don’t even give me that β€œpre cum can get you pregnant” bullshit. Only sperm can get you pregnant. Sometimes, sperm can get trapped in your urethra after you cum. Then, pre cum can cause that sperm to leak our, but taking a piss also clears out any sperm from your urethra, so as long as you piss before having sex and you pull out before you even begin to cum, then you will never get a woman pregnant.

[–]cali_ooga3 points [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

I completely agree. This is a male problem and they are the ones being reckless. Because a woman takes birth control she should not be responsible for ensuring she does not get an STI. That is the male's (or other female's) responsibility

[–]Eartherry 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, she's still responsible for any STIs she might get.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I completely agree. This is a male problem

and pregnancy is a female problem. That's why we have laws.

and they are the ones bein reckless.

Women and men both act recklessly, but only men face the potential of involuntarily inncurring a lifelong obligation from momentarily recklesabsss.

[–]question49462 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Every child has a father. That makes pregnancy the problem of humanity when it’s unwanted.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nothing makes it so. It's just a thing you're saying.

[–]mwait 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lololol

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Until men have birth control methods as secure as women do

Equality demands.jnstituting paper abortion

he doesn't have the right to argue that nothing negative should come from what amounts to misbehavior.

That's what women argue for. Right to choose is that. What's good for the pleasure goose is good for the pleasure gander.

[–]Rasterbate_My_Junk 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Also, B.C. still results in pregnancy 1/100 times.

I'm that '1' time & it sucks

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That really does suck. But abortion is also available (it should be free and available on demand in tandem with male abortion), and we can't make policy on the basis of edge caaes. But that really does suck. Damn.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

My sympathies. I got pregnant from my ex even though we uses condoms every single time. There must have been a tear so small that neither of us noticed.

[–]HumanSockPuppetEqual-Opportunity Oppressor 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I think the post title is just poorly-worded.

OP is referring to the fact that women have the right to abdicate parenthood via abortion after becoming impregnated, but men have no equivalent right to decide after impregnating a woman.

[–]xKalistoYuropean SAHM 6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

That would be reasonable argument to make.

Unfortunately OP's argument amounts to condomsex sucks women get to bareback and that's not fair.

[–]HumanSockPuppetEqual-Opportunity Oppressor 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That doesn't free us of the responsibility of giving an issue serious consideration by confronting the strongest arguments in favour of and against it.

I'm not interested in arguing technical correctness for worthless internet points. I want to arrive at truth and understanding.

[–]Cho_AssmilkArrogant RP S.O.B. -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Debate that with a couple women over drinks and watch then get fired up. Same goes if you mention cucking. They are so solopsitic they can't even begin to see this from the males perspective. They have no idea what men face when it comes to women getting pregnant. They are pregnant, it's all our fault and fuck whatever it means to us.

[–]kragshotDon't mind me...I'm just studying all of you talking monkeys.... -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

There's also women's right to legal surrender of the child.

Go to a fire station, library, or any other place designated as a "safe spot (including McDonald's)" and they can just drop off the baby...no questions asked. It's like "The Trail of Treats" but there's no witch at the end of the trail...just some daft, red-headed hamburger clown....

[–]HumanSockPuppetEqual-Opportunity Oppressor 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Indeed. Women have a number of options.

And not only do men have no options, but they can have their explicit wishes overridden by the actions of a woman, all in the name of her rights.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It is not weird. BC doesn't protect against STD.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

Ignoring your wierd condom issue... when a woman uses birth control you already derive exactly the same benefits she does... but without the side-effects.

Not any of the psychological ones, which are really the important ones. You're in the dark, while she knows exactly what the worst case scenarios are (whether morning after pill, abort, keep, whatever)

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

The worst case scenario is birth control fails for whatever reason, she becomes pregnant, chooses to give birth against your wishes and the state collects child support from you. There. No more mysteries. Forewarned is forearmed. Enjoy.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

The worst case scenario is birth control fails for whatever reason, she becomes pregnant, chooses to give birth against your wishes and the state collects child support from you. There. No more mysteries. Forewarned is forearmed. Enjoy.

And that worst case scenario is a manifest injustice. Under this new regime, the woman will be forewarned that if she has sex and the man doesn't want to contribute she may have to get an abortion or raise the chid alone.

FOREWARNED IS FOREARMED. ENJOY.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

How is it "injustice" that a guy puts his sperm inside a woman and she became pregnant as a result of his actions? The cause and effect is pretty simple.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's a mutual act, but the man has no say and bears the burden of the woman's choice. They're both fulfilling the same drive, but we empower one and punish the other. This will not stand.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Nobody is forcing you to come inside a woman with or without a condom. Also, I'm sure the majority of women who experience unplanned pregnancy strongly consider the father's opinion.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure the majority of women who experience unplanned pregnancy strongly consider the father's opinion.

No way to know this either way. They certainly don't have to. That's part and parcel of the uncertainty I'm talking about.

Nobody is forcing you to come inside a woman with or without a condom.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything except forcing men to bear a disproportionate impact of a mutually enjoyed experience

[–]kragshotDon't mind me...I'm just studying all of you talking monkeys.... -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is an example of the whole "sex/pregnancy is something that a man does to a woman" mentality, rather than "sex/pregnancy is something that a man and woman do together."

Until that kind of turbid thinking is cleared up, there will never be any real equality on this subject.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

You keep referring to birth control allowing us to have "unprotected sex." By definition it is protected sex. It sounds like you want to enjoy unprotected sex and abandon all responsibility if she gets pregnant.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy Link

I mean sex without a condom. Which feels immensely better. For both men and women.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/melmagazine.com/en-us/story/women-do-the-same-stuff-as-men-to-avoid-using-condoms/amp

Women are able to indulge in that highest of life pleasures freely and without lasting consequence through the layers of birth control/abortion. Men must be accorded that same freedom for equality to have any real meaning, and paper abortion is the way to do so.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

I'm aware that sex without a condom feels much better, I hate them and my accidental son came along because of that. I also don't get along with synthetic hormones like the pill which you seem to be assuming are no issue whatsoever.

It's such total bullshit to equate a woman's choice of having an abortion with this 'legal abortion' rubbish. It just biologically isn't the same thing by a long shot and it never will be. You never know until you have an accidental pregnancy whether you would be able to have an abortion- I certainly couldn't have gone through it and I'm completely pro-choice. At the very least, you would need a fully certified legal document ascertaining that the woman would be 100% willing to have an abortion BEFORE you had any sex. And even then, if she changes her mind and has the kid, that kid exists and you are simply letting her do everything and pay for everything for what is still biologically YOUR KID alive in the world.

The other thing I hate about this 'legal abortion' fantasy is that it puts all the onus of birth control onto the woman, because the man could just skip away from the situation with no consequences. It's already hard enough to resist the urge to just have unprotected sex when both partners are risking so much, if guys had no responsibility at all then there would be more STDs and accidental pregnancy.

I find the whole thing utterly repugnant and devoid of empathy for what women having an abortion actually entails.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

The other thing I hate about this 'legal abortion' fantasy is that it puts all the onus of birth control onto the woman, because the man could just skip away from the situation with no consequences. It's already hard enough to resist the urge to just have unprotected sex when both partners are risking so much, if guys had no responsibility at all then there would be more STDs and accidental pregnancy.

Or another result could be that women would choose their sexual partners far more carefully knowing it's on them, thereby reducing STDs and accidental pregnancies.

I'm aware that sex without a condom feels much better, I hate them and my accidental son came along because of that. I also don't get along with synthetic hormones like the pill which you seem to be assuming are no issue whatsoever.

There are also nonhormonal IUDs.

It's such total bullshit to equate a woman's choice of having an abortion with this 'legal abortion' rubbish. It just biologically isn't the same thing by a long shot and it never will be.

We're talking about law. Biology is the background.

You never know until you have an accidental pregnancy whether you would be able to have an abortion- I certainly couldn't have gone through it and I'm completely pro-choice.

You had choices though. Have a child in your life or don't. We're gonna give men that same kind.of say over the trajectory of their lives.

At the very least, you would need a fully certified legal document ascertaining that the woman would be 100% willing to have an abortion BEFORE you had any sex.

Or she could just not have sex. Make consenting to sex tantamount to consenting to abortion

And even then, if she changes her mind and has the kid, that kid exists and you are simply letting her do everything and pay for everything for what is still biologically YOUR KID alive in the world.

So what?

I find the whole thing utterly repugnant and devoid of empathy for what women having an abortion actually entails.

No one's saying it's a bed of roses but women risk it because sex feels fucking good. Abortion doesn't feel as good as the raw fucking.did but at least it's an.option on the table to not face a lifelong obligations on the basis of a single.recklesa act of pleasure. That same opportunity must be extended to men for equality to be meaningful, and paper abortion is the way to do it.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

HAHAHA hilarious how your answer to everything is to put it all onto the woman, you really nailed home my point about people who espouse this view having zero empathy for the woman involved! Also lol- sex is consent to abortion. WHAT??? And again, biologically, legally in EVERY WAY- ACTUAL ABORTIONS AND 'LEGAL ABORTIONS' ARE NOT REMOTELY THE SAME THING! So stop the bullshit about it being about equality. It's about selfish bastard scum of the earth wanting to have their cake and eat it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Women could choose not to have sex when not ready to conceive. Instead they fought for whatever thing would allow them to have it. Men doing so is morally equivalent to women doing so, no less or no more scum of the earth.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

... If we are talking about contraception, sure. We are all free to abstain or use birth control, with moral equivalence totally. I was referring to the 'legal abortion' wankers who want to be able to sign away all their responsibilities in the case of accidental pregnancy the scum of the earth, sorry if that wasn't clear.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

No no, you had it right, I am just such a wanker. I view men fighting for legal abortion as morally equivalent to women fighting for abortion-abortion. And that's why it will come to be. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but turn they do.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

THEY ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS how can you not comprehend that?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I disagree. What you see as obvious comprehension is a matter of different perspectives. I know the perspective I'm advancing will win out. For fuck's sake, the youth wing of Sweden's liberal party had this paper abortion proposal. It's what true equality would consist of. Comprehend that.

[–]womenhatemanlets1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Your son will be incel

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol my sons are NATURALS

[–]WhistlingDead 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

without lasting consequence

What's a little AIDS or chlamydia, right?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

But that consequence is symmetrical and therefore irrelevant. A major part of something can be unfair without the whole thing being unfair.

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points  (59 children) | Copy Link

This is especially true in light of how important having unprotected sex is to living a fulfilled life (if it were not, then women wouldn't be so extremely thankful for birth control as illustrated in the examples below, porn wouldn't be a billion dollar industry, etc.)

Condoms are birth control, condoms also sometimes fail, other forms of birth control make great insurance but don't protect against STIs. I've literally never had unprotected sex and I won't until I'm trying to have a child. Nothing these two tweeting women have said supports the claims you're making about unprotected sex.

Men who want to have sex without worrying about compromising their education or career can use condoms, have condom-protected sex with women who are on birth control, or even get a vasectomy in extreme cases. Men have methods to ensure that 'the only babies they are having this 'szn' are food babies', and suggesting otherwise is willfully ignoring the options for male birth control.

It's true that men tend to push for unprotected sex far more than women. I'm very sympathetic to men who are unprepared for fatherhood, and I think that men who have been reproductively coerced must have options to protect themselves legally. I also think that, ethically, the party that benefits more from a risky act ought to assume at least an equal share in the risk, and that the noteworthy 'risk' to mitigate here is clearly the one to the woman.

As long as women are broadly limited in their right to... any kind of abortion, including, in many cases, medically necessary ones, particularly in lower socioeconomic strata... the idea of a guaranteed 'male abortion' right is poorly thought out. A man can decide to 'abort' at a point where a woman might want to but be legally or practically denied that option.

If you agree that 'bearing/supporting an unwanted child' shouldn't be a punishment, which it seems that you do, access to conventional abortion might be an issue you could look into more. Denial of medically necessary abortion kills a lot more women than men.

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat 35 points36 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

I've literally never had unprotected sex and I won't until I'm trying to have a child.

Same! I'm BEWILDERED at how many people here seem to think PIV w/o a condom should be this no-big-deal, casual thing. Also, why does this sub act like having an abortion is this no-big-deal thing like going to the drugstore? It's an often-complex, sometimes psychologically wrenching medical procedure, even when it's completely safe and accessible, which it often isn't (and even then there are women who oppose them for moral reasons, which is their business). Saying "oh, an unplanned pregnancy is NBD for a woman, because she can get an abortion" is, like, STUNNINGLY ignorant.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

It's because their basic assumption is that women are 'in control' and have it better then men, accross the board.

Obviously, if women can get abortions and take BC - it has to be easy, and amazing.

Why would a group that dismisses what women think as a baseline rule, and whole-heartedly believe that women are ALWAYS playing some angle to subjugate men unfairly, believe a woman when she talks about the drawbacks? It's just 'hamstering'. Women bitch and play 'the victim' because they (twerps) ALSO believe that victims are the most powerful in society.

They go through a lot of effort to dehumanize and boil women down to "creatures that won't give me sex when I want it".

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat 10 points11 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah....I've seen some pretty extreme contortions used to claim NO WOMEN EVER HAVE ANYTHING ACTUALLY BAD HAPPEN TO THEM EVER. I think there'd be cognitive dissonance whiplash from even entertaining the thought that some feminist claims might be true.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

What twerps don't seem to understand is that I find them JUST AS disgusting and unreasonable as extreme, highly niche feminists. Both sides are mirror images, the difference? I have seen far MORE twerps and manosphere digits in real life, and I have never run into the insane-man-hating feminist.

I live in a very liberal state.

These smug assholes think they are hard to spot... they really aren't.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't know what's smug about wanting men to be able to experience life's single greatest pleasure, condomless sex, without the prospect of lifelong, involuntary obligation being incurred arising out of the act of momentary bliss, in the way that women have already been given the freedom to do?

If we want to make generalizations, why are women always so hypocritical AND unwilling to admit to it?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Your problem is that you think sex is "life's single pleasure".

Even with male BC, the number of women that will have raw sex won't be that high... Because STDs etc, and then, why would a woman take your word that you are on the appropriate medication, it's the same. You are right back at square one, with women not trusting random males, just as males distrust random females.

A lot of women do not us BC, because it fucks them up and comes with a long list of horrible side effects.

The solution? Get a gf (monogamy), regularly tested, and build enough trust to have raw sex.

If you believe it to be "the greatest pleasure life has to offer" then committing to one woman is the way to go.

The raw riders are all married or paired up in LTRs.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Your problem is that you think sex is "life's single pleasure".

Single greatest pleasure. If it weren't women nor men would put themselves through so much risk. Humans like to believe we're above all that animalistic nonsense but we decidedly are not. Even today half of pregnancies are unplanned. Reread that sentence and consider whether I might be right.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/posteverything/wp/2018/05/01/almost-half-of-pregnancies-in-the-u-s-are-unplanned-theres-a-surprisingly-easy-way-to-change-that/

Even with male BC, the number of women that will have raw sex won't be that high...

Oh really? Explain that 50% for me ...

Because STDs etc, and then, why would a woman take your word that you are on the appropriate medication, it's the same. You are right back at square one, with women not trusting random males, just as males distrust random females.

That's fine. Mistrust! I'm not saying let's maximize opportunities in the aggregate. I'm saying the consequences that result from failing to be careful are wholly disproportionate without paper abortion.

A lot of women do not us BC, because it fucks them up and comes with a long list of horrible side effects.

OK. But it is an option that's available to women willing to put up with the side effects and women who don't have side effects. Jesus nothing in life is easy. I'm saying the assymetry here is unjustifiable.

The solution? Get a gf (monogamy), regularly tested, and build enough trust to have raw sex.

But if the man trusts wrongly then they are also subject to the disproportionate impact machine.

The raw riders are all married or paired up in LTRs.

If anything the option of paper abortion being available will encourage fewer women to agree to sex that is plainly not in their best long term interests , which is why most but not all the raw riders are married up or paired up

(Related to the latter, there should be a domestic partnership/this is my guy/girl option short of marriage, and in these cases paper abortion should not be permitted)

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's because their basic assumption is that women are 'in control' and have it better then men, accross the board.

I don't know who you're talking about hut I'm making a specific claim and offering a viewpoint on it. There is an unjust inequity in this state of affairs. And it needs to be fixed IMMEDIATELY.

Obviously, if women can get abortions and take BC - it has to be easy, and amazing.

Who said anything about easy and amazing? It's simply that it's possible for women to indulge in condomless sex and have options available that allow them to avoid a lifelong involuntary obligation as a result of that momentary blissful recklessness. That same freedom MUST be accorded men under any meaningful equality.

Why would a group that dismisses what women think as a baseline rule

Not true.

and whole-heartedly believe that women are ALWAYS playing some angle to subjugate men unfairly

I'm saying the legal framework subjugates men unfairly

believen when she talks about the drawbacks?

EVERYTHING HAS DRAWBACKS. I'm simply saying that the option, with its drawbacks, to indulge in condomless sex without incurring lifelong involuntary obligation is available to women. It's not available to men drawbacks or otherwise.

It's just 'hamstering'. Women bitch and play 'the victim' because they (twerps) ALSO believe that victims are the most powerful in society.

You're not having conversation with me. I don't think this is the right thread for your fabriacted persecution complex.

They go through a lot of effort to dehumanize and boil women down to "creatures that won't give me sex when I want it".

You sound like someone who shouldn't be permitted to be around men, for men's safety.

[–]Physiologymatters 10 points11 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Their imagination outweighs their actual experience. Kinda like armchair quarterbacks

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You don't know my life

[–]xKalistoYuropean SAHM 16 points17 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Saying "oh, an unplanned pregnancy is NBD for a woman, because she can get an abortion" is, like, STUNNINGLY ignorant.

Whaaaaat you don't love getting unnecessary, psychologically draining, painful medical procedures?? I'M SHOCKED!

Like srsly during certain period I was 100% that I would get abortion in case of an accident but it still friggin terrified me.

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Same. I had one scare early on in my relationship, and while I knew I would get an abortion, it was terrifying.

Thankfully, it wasn't a pregnancy, but damn. It's terrifying.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Who said it's not painful? I'm saying it's available. And it's less painful than a lifelong, involuntary obligation. If it were not less painful no one would be having abortions.

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

And it's less painful than a lifelong, involuntary obligation.

In absolutely sincerity, I would 100% rather have the monetary obligation than have to have an abortion. It’s painful, can leave you infertile, can leave you traumatised from the combination of guilt, hormones and the lurking protestors and often impacts on your relationship on top - the couple of people I know who got one just never had the same relationship with their partner after it and the relationships ended.

I already pay a huge chunk of money every month in student loans, so I know I can handle that. Much rather face that for 18 years (less than the life of a student loan!) than have to get an abortion.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I believe you

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I've literally never had unprotected sex and I won't until I'm trying to have a child.

Same! I'm BEWILDERED at how many people here seem to think PIV w/o a condom should be this no-big-deal, casual thing.

Whether it should or shouldn't, the option to engage in it without the potential of incurring an involuntary lifelong obligation is AVAILABLE to women. When such a straightforward way of making that same freedom available to men is available, it must be made available under any meaningful conception of eqaulity.

Also, why does this sub act like having an abortion is this no-big-deal thing like going to the drugstore? It's an often-complex, sometimes psychologically wrenching medical procedure, even when it's completely safe and accessible, which it often isn't (and even then there are women who oppose them for moral reasons, which is their business). Saying "oh, an unplanned pregnancy is NBD for a woman, because she can get an abortion" is, like, STUNNINGLY ignorant.

No one's saying it doesn't suck. But it's an oprion. It's available. And it's availability empowers women tp engage in blissful condomless sex, literally the greatest pleasure there is, without potentially involuntarily incurring said lifelong obligation.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's called a vasectomy. Male pills are in development. If a woman is on BC, the man benefits as well.

Where are all these women running around fucking dozens of men without condoms? If a strange, unknown woman is willing to fuck raw... That should be a warning. Pregnancy is NOT the only concern.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Whether they do or don't, they have the option to. They have the option to even once. But it's available. >It's called a vasectomy. Male pills are in development. If a woman is on BC, the man benefits as well.

STDs are a symmetrical concern and are accordingly irrelevant to the discussion.

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

A. It is INSANE that you have no interest in lobbying for male hormonal birth control (yes, we know you're "not a scientist", but that's not how this works--scientists need evidence of demand to get funding, heck that's what happened with The Pill).

B. Some day, you're going to have sex with a correct-size condom, and be really unnerved that you enjoyed it as much as you did.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree that women should have legal and easy access to abortion, but as long as that’s the case, I really don’t see what your problem is with LPS laws. So long as women have control over their reproduction, men shouldn’t have to finance women’s reproductive choices. No one forces you to have a kid, you don’t get to demand someone who never wanted that fetus to become a kid pay for it.

[–]abaxeron✴️(Not Actually) Indian Programmer 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's true that men tend to push for unprotected sex far more than women.

Therefore, fuck men who used birth control correctly, whose birth control failed, and who got divorce-raped even without getting married just because a woman had the power to do it and abused said power.

If you agree that 'bearing/supporting an unwanted child' shouldn't be a punishment, which it seems that you do, access to conventional abortion might be an issue you could look into more.

Western Europe provides free abortion on demand at male taxpayers' expense. Men are still forced to support unwanted children. If the US implements the same level of "reproductive health" service as Europe, the state will still fuck men up and over for every misfortune that happens to them. And you will simply move the goalpost even further.

[–][deleted]  (37 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]DitaVonCleeseBlue Pill Woman 18 points19 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Condoms suck. Women have outs. Men do not. Needs to be rectified. Vasectomy can be irreversible; my whole point here is women are able.to indulge in life's ultimate pleasure, condomless sex, without irreversibly damaging their lives.

please read some information about negative effects of hormonal birth control. there is so much pressure for women to use it but in fact it creates huge amount of damage to their bodies, especially when they start to use it in their teens and/or use it long term. In my opinion, the negatives outweigh the positives (by far) and frankly, i'd rather use plastic bags for condoms than take hormonal birth control.

[–]frogsgoribbit737Purple Pill Woman 12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

A fucking men. I would rather use condoms any day than take hormonal birth control again. I had to take it recently to try and treat an ovarian cyst and I wanted to die. I was constantly nauseous and tired. I had a migraine most of the 3 months I was on it. I was depressed and felt like my brain was fuzzy. I was bloated and felt terrible. It was the worst. And those are just the symptoms I had. There are way more that can happen and it has even caused blood clots that KILL people.

I've always told my husband that hormonal birth control definitely works... Because it makes me very unwilling to have sex at all.

So yeah. Technically women can take hormonal birth control. But to act like its this wonder drug is annoying. It exists and it works, but it often has severe side effects. Condoms may suck, but they are way more preferable to me personally.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This. I'm grateful for birth control, and I've had to be on it for years to treat my endometriosis, but I fucking hate that people act like it's this perfect solution that has no downsides at all. It even makes sex less pleasurable, at least for me, because it dries me out and I don't get as turned on when I'm on it. I recently went off the pill for the first time in about five years and I can't believe how much better sex is now. Like, oh, this is what it's like to be aroused. I had literally forgotten.

[–]kragshotDon't mind me...I'm just studying all of you talking monkeys.... 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Question.

Are you saying that men do not deserve a birth control option that allows them the pleasure of sex without a physical barrier impeding the sensation and/or some avenue of legal escape from the result of an unwanted pregnancy?

Because that is all that he is saying that men should have.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

please read some information about negative effects of hormonal birth control

Nonhormonal birth control also exists

there is so much pressure for women to use it

From whom? #thxbirthcontrol entails tons of women celebrating it. Doesn't sound like pressure to me. Twitter is all over unfair pressure on women in like 10 seconds.

In my opinion, the negatives outweigh the positives (by far) and frankly, i'd rather use plastic bags for condoms than take hormonal birth control.

You're in a distinct minority.

https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/news/20141211/the-pill-remains-most-common-method-of-birth-control-us-report-shows

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Condoms do suck, but the important thing is they work so well when used correctly. Women don't have the outs you think they do. So many women here are trying to tell you this but you're not hearing it. Abortion being legal and BC 'available' doesn't mean all women have access to them strictly for the fun condomless sex. States, employers, and insurance haven't caught up to this bc in pez dispensers Utopia. Not to mention PP being a favorite political whipping child. You can't even get in there for a pap smear without crossing a herd of insane fundies. But sure: reproductive health is easy. God, it's a good thing sex feels amazing or no man would be getting laid in these conditions. Wear a condom and thank whoever you don't have to deal with this shit.

Plus, it's not even a guarantee! I mean hell, I bet every woman here has a bc horror story, fucking with your hormones can have consequences. Personally I went through 2 pills that made me insane and bleed like the hotel hallway in 'The Shining' before getting on Depo, which worked great for a year...until it didn't. Now I have a fifteen year old. Marriage and general security made it a non choice, but I'm not stupid enough to assume every woman is me. There are no guarantees. Make the hard choices for every eventuality or keep it in your pants.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Abortion being legal and BC 'available' doesn't mean all women have access to them strictly for the fun condomless sex. States, employers, and insurance haven't caught up to this bc in pez dispensers Utopia. Not to mention PP being a favorite political whipping child. You can't even get in there for a pap smear without crossing a herd of insane fundies.

Totally willing to concede that this should be in tandem. Limitless, free access for women. Paper abortion for men. That work?

God, it's a good thing sex feels amazing or no man would be getting laid in these conditions.

Yeah, it feels amazing. For both. And if we get back to pez dispenser level per above, it's only men we're punishing with the possibility of lifelong destruction on account of a single act of recklessness.

Women can also choose to "keep it in their pants" under the new risk allocation proposed.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Of course women can keep it in their pants, but we're not the ones who supposedly "need" sex so we're kinda doing men a solid by slogging through the goldilocks bc search. It'd be nice to get a male dominated legislation solid in return and actually have abortion and bc available and affordable rather than merely legal.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

Of course women can keep it in their pants, but we're not the ones who supposedly "need" sex

But it's a lie. You do "need" sex. With equal intensity, perhaps sometimes greater intensity, but more variability across time.

so we're kinda doing men a solid by slogging through the goldilocks bc search.

Bullshit.

It'd be nice to get a male dominated legislation solid in return and actually have abortion and bc available and affordable rather than merely legal.

They should both be the case. I'm all for maximize pleasure, minimize consequences.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Not bullshit in the slightest. Men want sex, sex with minimized consequences, sex with a woman who isn't being driven batshit insane by bc messing her hormones up in an incompatible way? That's something women grind out alone. You're welcome men brofist

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Not bullshit in the slightest. Men want sex, sex with minimized consequences

So do women. Otherwise women wouldnt be literally taking up every waking moment of news space fighting for literally the right to have their consequence free sex not only available but taxpayer funded. Women are such hypocrites. At least men admit their hypocrisy rather than acting like some sex martyr. Pathetic.

sex with a woman who isn't being driven batshit insane by bc messing her hormones up in an incompatible way? That's something women grind out alone. You're welcome men brofist

You need to take a other stab at this one because it doesn't make any sense. But in the meantime don't forget about nonhormonal IUDs

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not sure what confused you about that second paragraph other than a fundamental lack of understanding of how bc works and a woman's experience in finding the best one for her. Pain, bleeding, crazy, bloating, cramping, weight gain, and uhhh more crazy are all very common. Most women have to try a few before finding one that works well. It's not something a man can do for a woman, but he surely benefits from it once a good one is found. Hence the "you're welcome men brofist "

I'm so glad you mentioned IUDs! I'm somewhat of an expert. Non hormonal IUDs are great. For SOME women. They have side effects too, namely pain and Dexter kill room level periods that never end, anemia brought on from that and all the tiredness and headaches that go with it. They're also hundreds of dollars, unless you go through PP with their sliding pay scale. Just hope your state hasn't shut them down (but bc is "available" so don't worry about the small detail that it's not attainable!) or some fundie isn't there the same day to shoot the place up or pipe bomb it.

But insurance! Okay. I don't know about plans in general but I can speak to my own. I have a Kyleena IUD. Really quickly here I'm gonna say that it's low dose hormonal, but IUDs act locally rather than pump your bloodstream full of hormones. A miniscule amount of hormones actually get into the bloodstream, which can make all the difference in the search for ideal bc. Anyway. I have a PPO through my husband's employer, and they cover WAY more than they have to. Our Deductible is 2k for a family of 4 with a copay of $25. We've never been denied a treatment or medicine, it's a great plan. Covered my $650 Kyleena fully. However! Had it been a nightmare and I had to take it out, my insurance would then not cover ANY bc for 5 years, the duration of the Kyleena.

So it's not as simple as stopping by IUDs-R-Us. If you can get it on a sliding scale for a low rate you're very very lucky. Unless college health centers do them now? That would be awesome but idk. If your insurance is shit you're on the hook for hundreds; and even if it's still a decent price if the IUD doesn't work out then you're paying out of pocket for a different bc for years or relying on condoms (horror!) and Plan B. Plan B totally fucks hormones temporarily btw, and is cost prohibitive for some.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The options are imperfect, and can feel dreadful. But they are there. Not a single man has the paternal termination option as it stands.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

You need to take a other stab at this one because it doesn't make any sense. But in the meantime don't forget about nonhormonal IUDs

Non hormonal IUD is some of the most difficult bc to get ahold of and can have some of the worst side effects. The doctor eliminated it from my options right away simply because my period is too heavy.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I got Paragard about 7 years ago and I bled like a stuck pig for three solid months and was in excruciating pain. Once I had it removed and did more research it was clear my doctor should have never allowed me to have one.

[–]nevomintoarcePurple Pill Woman 8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You should have sex with 45+ year old women. I hear they have a hard time getting pregnant.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

In a case in which the potential consequences of carrying a pregnancy to term are equal for both parties, the opportunity to 'opt out' should be equitably distributed. This is not an easy state of affairs to reach, as there is no proportionate physical toll to an unwanted pregnancy (even one that ends in a termination) for the man involved.

Vasectomy can be irreversible; my whole point here is women are able.to indulge in life's ultimate pleasure, condomless sex, without irreversibly damaging their lives.

Getting chlamydia is just as damaging to women's long term ability to procreate as a vasectomy. About 30% of infertile women are infertile due to chlamydia; more due to other condom-preventable STIs. That's quite irreversible, and some would argue, quite damaging. Between 10%-60% of vasectomy reversals are unsuccessful, but it sounds like you really want to have condomless sex, so you might consider it anyway.

Sincerely, your time would be much better spent lobbying for a male hormonal birth control or greater abortion access if you find condomless sex so desirable. There are some great efforts underway that don't require massive sociopolitical change to abortion access, perception, and legality to be equitable.

Your original post is nearly incomprehensible in its determination to extrapolate 'women view birth control exclusively as a means to avoid condom use' from a set of tweets that might or might not have anything to do with the situation, but I hope you'll consider reading up further on means by which men can take on greater responsibility for family planning.

[–][deleted]  (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]xKalistoYuropean SAHM 20 points21 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The woman has to sit in the chair. Sure enough.

If your idea of toll of unwanted pregnancy and termination is 'has to sit in a chair' then you are simply clueless.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If your idea of the toll of not having any idea or say of what the consequences will be, you're clueless. I mean, everyone's out for themselves, and is therefore clueless of the others' perspective. That's fine. That's why eventually people get fed up and voice their own perspective and facilitate change representing that perspective.

[–]frogsgoribbit737Purple Pill Woman 17 points18 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You are so clueless to what an abortion entails. As someone who went through a miscarriage and the equivalent od a medical abortion (in which a woman takes the pill instead of having the procedure) it was terrible. I was basically in labor and in a ton of pain. Even after being prescribed Narco, it hurt to sit up or cough or laugh. I was bleeding literal buckets for hours on end and had to stay sitting on the toilet because I was bleeding through pads.

There are women that go through that to have an abortion.

But even a D&C (the procedure) isn't painless ot without its risks. Stop being so ignorant.

Just wear a god damn condom. Jesus christ. Men are such babies.

[–]xKalistoYuropean SAHM 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry for your loss.

I apologise for prying but I looked at your posts and just wanna say good luck with the baby!

Sometimes it can be frustratingly long time, my sis was trying for 4 years (!) but now she has lil boy and she's over 30.

Also hi5 crochet I'm working on a giraffe now too :D

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You are so clueless to what an abortion entails. As someone who went through a miscarriage and the equivalent od a medical abortion (in which a woman takes the pill instead of having the procedure) it was terrible. I was basically in labor and in a ton of pain. Even after being prescribed Narco, it hurt to sit up or cough or laugh. I was bleeding literal buckets for hours on end and had to stay sitting on the toilet because I was bleeding through pads.

There are women that go through that to have an abortion.

But you still didn't have to raise the baby. The temporary horror of the procedure doesn't negate or outweigh the permanent horror of forcing a lifetime burden knto men as a consequence of a reckless act in a way we simply do not on men. And in the abortion context the woman got to have the sex too, don't forget.

But even a D&C (the procedure) isn't painless ot without its risks. Stop being so ignorant.

I'm not being ignorant. You're just overweighting your downsides while underweighting those of men. That's ok. That type of logic is what gives rise to social movements. That's how president trumps get elected.

Just wear a god damn condom. Jesus christ. Men are such babies.

Women, too. Here's an article entitled

Women do the same stuff as men to avoid using condoms

https://www.google.com/amp/s/melmagazine.com/en-us/story/women-do-the-same-stuff-as-men-to-avoid-using-condoms/amp

But only men have this lifelong impact from a single reckless act imposed on them.

[–]ginasaurus-rex 4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

>The landscape of options justifies paper abortion, and that's why it'll become law within the next decade.

I think your legal argument is aimed in the wrong direction. Your beef is not with the fact that women can get abortions. The reason child support exists is because the child has rights. Yes, the child would not exist if the woman got an abortion. However, as a society, we try (in theory) not to directly punish children for their parents' poor choices.

So, a child that is born currently has a legal right to support from both their parents. That is a right of the CHILD and cannot legally be waived by either parent. Even if the child is born because of the mother's choice not to get an abortion, it does not invalidate the legal fact that a child now exists, and it has rights.

I think your argument would be better directed at the idea that children deserve support of two parents, rather than solely focusing on the fact that women are allowed to abort. There will never be an equivalent to abortion for men (paper or otherwise), because there is simply no way to place a value on the "damages" of termination or pregnancy on a woman's body. That's why the ball is kept firmly in the woman's court for anything pregnancy/childbirth related (including financial consequences of both).

The reason I think so many who hold your view continue to harp on abortion in this matter is that trying to liken a financial opt-out to an abortion is more palatable than arguing that a child's rights should be taken away. But that is exactly what the end goal of this argument is, so I think you'd be better off going down that road.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

But this framework would be overexcluding, as it would weed out men who would support if support were a default position that could be opted out of.

[–]ginasaurus-rex 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Not really. If the child does not have rights to support from both parents, then the framework is in place to set up an opt-out. But the opt-out can't even be put in place if the child's right to both parents' support exists. Right now, nobody can waive that child's right legally.

Support can remain the default position (though it seems having it be opt-in would provide more cost-saving administratively).

[–]kragshotDon't mind me...I'm just studying all of you talking monkeys.... 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

But the opt-out can't even be put in place if the child's right to both parents' support exists. Right now, nobody can waive that child's right legally.

But women can do that in every case. A woman can legally surrender her child with no questions asked at designated safe spaces. This was done to prevent the infamous "prom-night dumpster baby" epidemic that was plaguing the country.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not against it. But let's be real...it is either we create such a structure or we get a bunch of young girls or women essentially killing their babies (let's not get into the ethics of why it happens...for the sake of this argument, we just accept that it does, without judgment against any woman that chooses to do so).

In addition, if a woman decides to put her baby up for adoption, nobody is going to go out of their way to see if the father signed off on the adoption papers; regardless of what the law may or may not say. The mother's agreement to the situation is normally deemed legally sufficient. You can find all sorts of cases in the news where the father of such a child actually wanted to raise it but his wants were denied in favor of the mother's wishes to put the child up for adoption.

Both of these measures are commonly deemed "the right of the mother," and also commonly disregard any wishes of the father.

So...why again can't we place an opt-out into the system that favors a male that is either unwilling or unable to be a father?

The only reason that I am seeing is that society does not want such a thing to be in place...there is no practical or logical reason that is preventing it.

[–]ginasaurus-rex 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

But women can do that in every case. A woman can legally surrender her child with no questions asked at designated safe spaces. This was done to prevent the infamous "prom-night dumpster baby" epidemic that was plaguing the country.

You're right, but if a man finds himself in possession of a newborn he does not wish to care for, he can do the same thing. It's not specific to women, but women tend to do it more, because they generally find themselves in possession of a child after birthing it.

In addition, if a woman decides to put her baby up for adoption, nobody is going to go out of their way to see if the father signed off on the adoption papers.

Any semi-involved partner is going to notice that his child has been put up for adoption/is missing. And can establish paternity, contest the adoption, take custody, and collect child support from mom.

However, I'm not really sure why you are straying so far from your OP by citing citing safe haven and adoption laws. Isn't the end game of your argument that a man should have the option to relinquish guardianship? Both safe haven and adoption relinquish the father's guardianship.

You need to come up with some coherent arguments why a child does not have the right to be supported by both parents (outside of situations where legal guardianship has been transferred via safe haven or adoption, which already produce your desired result of relieving the father of his parent status). It's the child's rights with which you have issue, not women's.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

did someone lie to you to make you believe you're entitled to get everything you want?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

No. Did someone do that to you or to women generally ? Because as it is the scale is tipped too far in that direction. A feeling of entitlement to having thy cake and eating it too.

NO LONGER

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

no, but just because women have a privilege in this regard doesn't mean men are inherently entitled to the same privilege.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

There's nothing inherent about any privilege. It's all what we can negotiate.

[–]Physiologymatters 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The only truly fair solution is mandatory birth control for both women and men. If you want a kid you need to apply for permission to have it reversed and show all partners your status.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Pretty damn good idea!

[–]quasirealikecreature 13 points14 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

Are men incapable of using condoms and therefore not having access to birth control? Because the implication is that men are hurt by birth control because if they get someone pregnant (by not using birth control) than they have to take responsibility. Obviously that's incoherent and your point doesn't make sense.

I'm all for a male birth control pill. They've tested one, but men complained about mood swings and such. Haha

[–]xKalistoYuropean SAHM 1 point2 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

They've tested one, but men complained about mood swings and such. Haha

Tbh if I remember correctly on it it seems it was much worse than your regular mood swings. Few guys were outright suicidal. Imo that's fair pass.

[–]quasirealikecreature 8 points9 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

This does also happen to plenty of females though.

My point however is simply male birth control currently exists (condoms) and even things like spermacide (although I think it's less "safe"), and they're expanding on types/testing other things. So basically: the op makes zero sense trying to say men shouldn't have to take responsibility just as women don't by using protection, except that by using protection those women are taking responsibility. So men who don't want a baby or responsibilities and do want casual sex should use protection.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If your birth control gives you extreme mood swings and makes you suicidal, then it’s time to change your birth control. There’s no need to shame men for not wanting to go through that when the whole point of all of the different options is so that women aren’t stuck with pills that do shit like this to them.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

But condomless sex feels way better. It's not even close. Condomless sex is in fact life's greatest pleasure. And the opportunity for condomless sex without involuntarily incurring a lifelong obligation has been made available to women. Equality demands that it be made available to men.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Then don't have condomless sex unless it's with a woman you know very well and can be absolutely certain would have an abortion.

If you want to go around having unprotected sex with strangers or near-strangers you accept responsibility for the risks. You don't get to choose whether or not she has an abortion because you are not the pregnant party, and you don't get to have a financial abortion because your irresponsibility has created kid who needs food and shelter regardless of anything.

Death isn't an appropriate punishment for sending a quick text while driving -- but sometimes that's just what happens. Not everything in life is fair. Suck it up and get used to the condoms.

[–][deleted]  (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

It's not involuntary obligation. You have the option of using condoms. You have the option of pulling out. You have the option of doing both, which pretty much guarantees you will never knock someone up. You have plenty of control over the situation.

Having an abortion is a consequence, by the way! It's painful, expensive, and for some women it's pretty horrible psychologically. Birth control can have unpleasant side effects. You deal with none of this, so simple stuff like "wear a fucking condom, you fucking idiot" feels like an insane demand. It's a fraction of what you're expecting women to put up with so you can continue being reckless because you like how it makes your dick feel.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

It's not involuntary obligation. You have the option of using condoms.

And women have the option of not using condoms, which feels way better, which is the asymmetric injustice I am pointing out.

You have the option of pulling out.

This creates uncertainty for everyone. Yeah rhythm method used correctly...people can't even be relied on to take pills on time (men or women).

Having an abortion is a consequence, by the way! It's painful, expensive, and for some women it's pretty horrible psychologically. Birth control can have unpleasant side effects.

Jeez yeah, it's not perfect. But literally no one will argue that involuntary baby obligation isn't orders of magnitude worse--which itself is demonstrated by the volume of women who do these things despite the downsides. It's not even comparable. At any rate, it is an option. If you're a woman and you're willing to go through that stuff you can have thee some condomless sex without involuntarily obligation.

You deal with none of this, so simple stuff like "wear a fucking condom, you fucking idiot" feels like an insane demand. It's a fraction of what you're expecting women to put up with so you can continue being reckless because you like how it makes your dick feel.

And women choose to do it because they like how it makes their pussy feel. So why should such practice, or even one time mistake, involuntarily condemn men, when both men and women are just trying to fulfill their urges?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Pulling out is 96% effective with perfect use -- which actually makes it better than the rhythm method by a wide margin. Pulling out + condoms = literally any baby that happens is either a goddamn miracle or not yours.

Biology isn't fair. You have full control over which risks you take. If you like unprotected sex so much and are so frightened of the consequences, get a vasectomy. You can always adopt if you want kids later.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

with perfect use

LOL

pullling out + condoms

Again, through birth control and abortion we've given women the freedom to engage in far better feeling condomless sex without the potential for involuntary imposition of lifelong obligation. That's the parity paper abortion will establish for men.

Biology isn't fair. You have full control over which risks you take. If you like unprotected sex so much and are so frightened of the consequences, get a vasectomy. You can always adopt if you want kids later.

Again, birth control doesn't risk infertility. Parity must be instated --biology isn't fair but laws can be changed to make things fairer. Women know all about doing that. Now it's time for men to do so.

[–]kragshotDon't mind me...I'm just studying all of you talking monkeys.... 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

RISUG/Vasigel will fix that shit soon enough.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Till that happens (if--maybe it will never receive medical approval, not a scientist so no idea) it's an issue that needs fixing

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's because men don't know how to handle their emotions

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Are men incapable of using condoms and therefore not having access to birth control?

No but condoms feel much much worse. It's just as good as not having sex. And it's not just men who feel that way.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/melmagazine.com/en-us/story/women-do-the-same-stuff-as-men-to-avoid-using-condoms/amp

Article entitled

Women do the same stuff as men to avoid using condoms

Difference being that if women indulge this desire they have options while if men do they have obligations they have no say over. Paper abortions would give them that day and restore parity.

I'm all for a male birth control pill. They've tested one, but men complained about mood swings and such. Haha

I'm not a scientist. Till it is medically approved the injustice remains an injustice.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that if a woman gets pregnant she has the option of absolving herself of the responsibility of having a child by getting an abortion.

A man has no such option, and so unless you think a man should have a say in whether or not a women gets and abortion, you shouldn't have a say in whether or not he has to support the child.

I do, however, believe there should be some stipulations, such as if the man wants to absolve himself of any financial responsibility for the child he must also not be allowed any form of involvement in his child's life whatsoever.

[–]Mariko2000 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Can the rest of us absolve ourselves of the added tax burden from the guys who absolve themselves?

[–]xKalistoYuropean SAHM 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Now that I think about it still doesn't make the issue wholy equal. Imo paper abortion is ethicaly fair towards the guy but let's entertain the notion.

Q: Who does abortion benefit?

A: Obviously the woman. But also the man who is benefiting via externality. The state doesn't have to worry about the non-existent child, and there's no child to suffer.

Q: Who does the paper abortion benefit?

A: Just the man. The woman picked her own fate so whatever but now the state has to deal with and often pay for the fatherless child and the child obviously gets the shortest of sticks.

In case of paper abortion it is also necessary to put similar restrictions on the men as on women. You can't have guy deciding to opt out 30 weeks in and mother is stuck without being able to terminate. And no I don't think allowing unlimited abortion is an option here, 30 weeks in that's a full on baby, not just fetus w/o nervous system.

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Also bear in mind the third affected party - the child. In an abortion, there is no child resulting, so we don’t have to consider whether or not they benefit.

In a financial abortion, that child is suddenly facing real financial uncertainty. With the need to work, childcare costs etc, that child is probably going to suffer for lack of either government subsidy by welfare or from the non custodial parent (or either sex).

In that case, the result of a financial or paper abortion is weighting the benefit to the man (or woman, whoever wants to leave) over the child, and so adds another ethical layer to consider.

[–]eurydice666 9 points10 points  (32 children) | Copy Link

Lol, this man doesn’t know what a condom is.

Also, why are you advocating for a β€œpaper abortion” system and not just the male birth control pill to be available to the masses? That would be the equivalent to the female birth control pill.

And, single mothers are statistically producing the least well balanced and least well off children. Financial abortions would only vastly exacerbate this. We do not want generations of fucked up kids. Men need to play a role in the lives of their children. It’s also why you will literally never be able to get a paper abortion. (That and the fact that most of these kids will probably live below the poverty line and will require state welfare, so inevitably you will be paying for kids anyway, lol).

[–]ElonMuskForPrison 0 points1 point  (20 children) | Copy Link

The male birth control pill is not equivalent to abortion.

[–]xKalistoYuropean SAHM 7 points8 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Paper abortion is not equivalent to female abortion either.

[–]ElonMuskForPrison -1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Only insofar as it doesn't directly kill a child.

[–]xKalistoYuropean SAHM 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

That's pretty big bloody difference ^^;

[–]ElonMuskForPrison -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Equivalent doesn't mean exactly the same. They're equivalent in that they both eliminate a legal responsibility to another human being.

[–]xKalistoYuropean SAHM 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

No not really because in case of abortion there is no human being to be responsible for and they are both absolved.

Equivalent would be giving up baby for adoption.

The baby existing or not existing IS the crux of the issue.

Imo paper abortion could work but it would have to be limited by the same timeframe as real abortion. Which still leaves bunch of issues unresolved if she wants to entrap/hide it (which even if illegal would be unprosecutable)

[–]ElonMuskForPrison -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

No not really because in case of abortion there is no human being to be responsible for

Yes, and?

and they are both absolved.

Against the will of the father, perhaps.

The woman has a unilateral choice after pregnancy begins which eliminates the baby as a legal (and actual) reality for her. The man does not.

Equivalent would be giving up baby for adoption.

Giving a baby up for adoption requires both parties to agree. If the mother wants to give it up and the father does not, the father can gain full custody and sue for child support.

The baby existing or not existing IS the crux of the issue.

The baby existing or not is irrelevant to the legal construct that has been created that is family law.

Which still leaves bunch of issues unresolved if she wants to entrap/hide it (which even if illegal would be unprosecutable)

Just make fatherhood opt-in. Simple.

[–]xKalistoYuropean SAHM 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The baby existing or not is irrelevant to the legal construct that has been created that is family law

That makes no sense. As one poster here pointed out all that matters legally are rights of the child.

Father does not have legal obligation to the mother. He has the legal obligation to the child. Because it is the child (living breathing human being) that has rights. If it doesn't exist it has no rights.

Which is why even if there is paper abortion it should only have timeframe of normal abortion so that the decision about the child's existence can be made.

[–]ElonMuskForPrison 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

As one poster here pointed out all that matters legally are rights of the child.

Which are a legal construct.

Father does not have legal obligation to the mother. He has the legal obligation to the child.

He has a legal obligation to the child which manifests as a legal obligation to the mother.

Because it is the child (living breathing human being) that has rights. If it doesn't exist it has no rights.

Yes, and? Why should women be unilaterally be able to eliminate their relationship with the child and men not be able to do the same? Legal equality.

Which is why even if there is paper abortion it should only have timeframe of normal abortion so that the decision about the child's existence can be made.

If fatherhood is opt-in, then women will have to make exactly that decision anyway.

[–]eurydice666 3 points4 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Yeah...so the female birth control pill is not equivalent to the paper abortion either, which is what OP is arguing.

If he wanted to complain about not being able to back out of caring for his child, then he should have made a post about women being allowed abortions. (Which I still don’t believe to be an equivalent anyway.)

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

If he wanted to complain about not being able to back out of caring for his child, then he should have made a post about women being allowed abortions

Already allowed?

[–]eurydice666 1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

...yes? I mean about how there isn’t a male equivalent to that.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Which is what I'm proposing. Paper abortions. Same result.

[–]eurydice666 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

How many times do people have to tell you.

The premise of your argument is that because women have a birth control pill, you should have paper abortions.

Birth control pill DOES NOT equal paper abortion, so what you are proposing has an incorrect premise, and therefore loses validity. It’s like saying dogs have puppies, so I want a cup of tea!

Even a real abortion does not equal a paper abortion.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

The landscape of outcomes electable by men and women resting from condomless sex are not at parity, which is why they should be at parity, which is why the must be at parity, which is why they will be at parity. You can repeat yourself as many times as you want , but I will repeat the foregoing in return.

[–]eurydice666 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

You believe in equality of outcome? Do you also believe in employment quotas for minorities? β€œEqual wage” for women? Really didn’t have you nailed as a dribbling left winger lmaooo.

As soon as the male birth control pill comes out, you can drop this stupid argument and get on with your life.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

You believe in equality of outcome? Do you also believe in employment quotas for minorities?

No, but I do believe in employment and education quotas based on class/income background. Quota equally applicable to inner city blacks and whites who are children of poor farmers. (I'm neither, by the way. Quotas hate me).

β€œEqual wage” for women?

Absolutely

Really didn’t have you nailed as a dribbling left winger lmaooo.

Ok

As soon as the male birth control pill comes out, you can drop this stupid argument and get on with your life.

It may never. Unless and until it does, it needs fixin

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Lol, this man doesn’t know what a condom is.

Addressed; did you read what I wrote?

Also, why are you advocating for a β€œpaper abortion” system and not just the male birth control pill to be available to the masses? That would be the equivalent to the female birth control pill.

I'm not a scientist.

And, single mothers are statistically producing the least well balanced and least well off children. Financial abortions would only vastly exacerbate this. We do not want generations of fucked up kids.

With the divorce/breaking off relationship rates they become.single mothers sooner or later or anyway. What's the difference? The type of man who would stay involved wouldn't elect this option.

Men need to play a role in the lives of their children. It’s also why you will literally never be able to get a paper abortion.

Women take this role away from men for their own ends with the help of the court system a the time. That's also why you will literally have a paper abortion before you have a woman president. (Meaning, that's the sequential order it so happens it will take place).

(That and the fact that most of these kids will probably live below the poverty line and will require state welfare, so inevitably you will be paying for kids anyway, lol).

Abolisu welfare, and if you can't feed your kid the're given up for adoption on the grounds of neglect. Problem solved.

[–]SizzleFrazz 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

if you can't feed your kid the're given up for adoption on the grounds of neglect. Problem solved.

Then that the kid gets put into foster care which means your taxes still end up supporting this child anyway soooo the problem hasn’t been solved it’s just been shifted and repackaged.

[–]eurydice666 2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Addressed; did you read what I wrote?

Yes, it’s a joke fam because of your ridiculously fallacious reasoning. You do realise condoms are the only protection against STDs? Plus, not using a condom does NOT feel more pleasurable for women, lol. I say this because you seem to lack basic sex education. The right to not do the bare minimum for your kids will not be granted because you want more feelz during sex lmao.

I'm not a scientist.

Lol, I wasn’t asking you to invent one, but simply advocate for it if you are so worried about unintentionally impregnating someone. Would that not be a better, more realistic goal? I only point this out because the equivalent of the female birth hormone pill would be the male birth hormone pill, not a paper abortion (as the equivalent to that would be an actual abortion).

With the divorce/breaking off relationship rates they become.single mothers sooner or later or anyway. What's the difference? The type of man who would stay involved wouldn't elect this option.

That is not the same. Custody rates in divorce have male involvement (either in the form of part time with kids or financial maintenance), a paper abortion does not. Besides, only 20% of first time marriages end in divorce, so 80% of those with kids are all fine and dandy and have two parents :)

Women take this role away from men for their own ends with the help of the court system a the time.

Ah, I see you get your ~factual info~ from mgtow...most women, surprisingly, do actually want a (healthy) male figure for their children.

That's also why you will literally have a paper abortion before you have a woman president. (Meaning, that's the sequential order it so happens it will take place).

Lol, thinking I give a shit whether the US has a female president...why would I care? I’m not even American, and the sex of my politicians means nothing to me. There will be no paper abortion, the American government actually applauds family values. I’m sorry your education failed you so badly. Luckily this whole fuss will be over when the male birth control is patented.

Abolisu welfare, and if you can't feed your kid the're given up for adoption on the grounds of neglect. Problem solved.

Adoption would require a foster care system (which aren’t exactly renowned for creating upstanding citizens either). Enjoy paying taxes for all these bastard children in care and unable to be adopted simply due to high demand for foster parents!

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Addressed; did you read what I wrote?

Yes, it’s a joke fam because of your ridiculously fallacious reasoning. You do realise condoms are the only protection against STDs? Plus, not using a condom does NOT feel more pleasurable for women, lol.

Women do the same stuff as men to avoid using condoms

https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/women-do-the-same-stuff-as-men-to-avoid-using-condoms

Accordingly, MAYBE YOU'RE THE ONE LACKING BASIC SEX EDUCATION. Or maybe you're assuming that all women's experience in that regard is the same as yours.

I say this because you seem to lack basic sex education. The right to not do the bare minimum for your kids will not be granted because you want more feelz during sex lmao.

We gave women the right to terminate pregnancies for "more feelz during sex."

Adoption would require a foster care system. Enjoy paying taxes for all these bastard children in care and unable to be adopted simply due to high demand for foster parents!

I already pay in taxes for women to get free birth control so they can avoid having bastard children. Money is fungible, and the more just outcome is worth whatever increase in spending comes about.

[–]eurydice666 3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

LOL did you even read your own article, it says:

A 2013 study that found that the idea that condoms somehow reduce the pleasure of sex is a myth. The Journal of Sexual Medicine surveyed a few thousand adults age 18 to 59 and found that safe sex was rated as pleasurably as unsafe sex.

Your whole argument is based off that you want more sensation during sex by not using condoms. According to your article, this isn’t true. Enjoy!

And, the study that women also reject the use of condoms during sex was based on a study with LESS THAN 300 women and only 313 men, only aged 18-21 (so young, irresponsible) where less than half of the women stated they attempted to not use condoms, and 80% of the men stated they attempted to not use condoms.

I know you’re not a scientist but surely you can see this study is entirely invalid in its argument...these are not good statistic for a study to extrapolate to the general public. My sex education is just fine, thank you.

We gave women the right to terminate pregnancies for "more feelz during sex."

LOL thanks for giving me a good laugh. Yeah Roe v Wade really went down like that. Women were granted the right to abortion because 1.fetuses do not have considerable rights and 2.women argued they should have bodily autonomy. As I said, if it was about more feeling during sex, the female birth pill does that, no need for abortion. (although a dude going raw really doesn’t make much difference in terms of actual sensation for women.)

I already pay in taxes for women to get free birth control so they can avoid having bastard children. Money is fungible, and the more just outcome is worth whatever increase in spending comes about.

How is it just that parents get away with being negligent to their children? That is morally wrong. Plus lol, you really would prefer that everyone just pays for other people’s unwanted kids, and not the parents? That’s just stupid, I assume you’re not a socialist, right? Because that sounds an awful lot like socialism.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

That’s just stupid, I assume you’re not a socialist, right? Because that sounds an awful lot like socialism.

Proud democratic socialist and reluctant Trump voter. Conclude what you will.

Why can't liberals care about this? Did you know paper abortion has been widely proposed in Sweden? It's because that's what true, non exploitative equality looks like.

[–]eurydice666 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Proud democratic socialist

You said earlier to abolish welfare? What? Are you having an identity crisis?

Sweden is in a far better position to propose financial abortions as the state picks up the tab due to the crazy taxes over there. (I’ve never heard anything about this though, so do you have sources?)

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

You said earlier to abolish welfare? What? Are you having an identity crisis?

Minimum basic income. Use it fund your babies or your business or your marijuana habit, as you wish.

Sweden is in a far better position to propose financial abortions as the state picks up the tab due to the crazy taxes over there. (I’ve never heard anything about this though, so do you have sources?)

Proposal by the Swedish liberal party's youth wing, no less, not the aging bald MRA you probably had in mind

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thelocal.se/20160304/let-men-have-legal-abortions/amp

We don't pay as much in taxes but we get very little from our government in return for what we pay. The tradeoff of increasing taxes and correspondingly increasing services could properly be sold as a win. Even our own taxing of the rich was way higher pre-Reagan

[–]eurydice666 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

A minimum basic incomes exists. Of course, it’s decided by the market. What happens to those who cannot work full time due to children, but also can not afford a nursery? The answer to everything is not β€œupping the wage minimum”, because it’s not how the economy works. Because that would require subsidising wages, (a safety net...a....welfare system, if you will).

You know Trump won’t tax the rich, right?

That Swedish group never actually implemented the bill due to overwhelming negative response, if you actually read the article, go figure.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

A minimum basic incomes exists. Of course, it’s decided by the market. What happens to those who cannot work full time due to children, but also can not afford a nursery? The answer to everything is not β€œupping the wage minimum”, because it’s not how the economy works. Because that would require subsidising wages, (a safety net...a....welfare system, if you will).

The minimum wage is hourly and so the end result varies widely on the availability of hours, availability of work, etc. A basic income is steady, consistent, and predictable.

You know Trump won’t tax the rich, right?

He expanded the window of what seems politically viable. That's significant, because it leads to the viability of other radical ideas...it generally makes people's thinking more flexible. "Well we've already had someone with no political experience be president, why not a populist state senator from West Virginia?"

That Swedish group never actually implemented the bill due to overwhelming negative response, if you actually read the article, go figure.

Yet. But it's in the overton window now. Repackaged, in a different country (we elected Trump after all) and I foresee a different result.

[–]Willow-girlACAB (All Cows Are Beautiful) 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If you really feel that strongly about condoms but don't want to be a parent, get a vasectomy, and maybe stick some of those little buggers in the deep freeze in the event you change your mind about having kids later. Problem solved!

[–]Wandos7looks fade; cooking is forever 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Vasectomy is reversible, so that's not even something they need to do.

[–]Regal_NewtBlue Pill Woman 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Sex on birth control IS protected sex.

Also, men can already give up their parental rights and not owe child support. Not only that, but any child support he may already owe will be forgiven.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sex on birth control IS protected sex.

I'd edited above to clarify I'm referring to condomless sex

Also, men can already give up their parental rights and not owe child support. Not only that, but any child support he may already owe will be forgiven.

Not true. Not in America.

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat 16 points17 points  (48 children) | Copy Link

You...do understand that feminists have long wanted there to be a state-funded child support option rather than tying women to the child's father by default via the current child support system? (frankly, if a man was such a dick that the idea of paying for his own kid's food and clothes was repulsive to him, I wouldn't WANT his money, nor his presence in my/ my kid's life)

This seems like an issue that MRA-types and feminists could easily collaborate on, if it weren't for so many of the former's weird phobia of the government using money for anything but killing people.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (41 children) | Copy Link

State funded... What a joke. It means ALL MEN WILL BE RESPONSIBLE for some sluts mistakes. All men will have to fund it. That's the definition of taxes. Sweetie.

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat 23 points24 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

It means ALL MEN WILL BE RESPONSIBLE for some sluts mistakes. All men will have to fund it. That's the definition of taxes. Sweetie.

And all women. I know half this sub lives in the alternate universe where women don't have jobs or pay taxes, but here on Earth I file every spring, and I'd be much happier paying for "some sluts mistakes" (known in certain circles as a living breathing human child) than dropping bombs on random people in the Middle East, or sending the Army to stop impoverished families hundreds of miles away from coming to America to look for work.

Pumpkin.

[–]------__------------2 points [recovered] (18 children) | Copy Link

Men pay more taxes because of the hard work gap

[–]Here4thebeer3232No Pill 4 points5 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Which means men get paid more. So it evens out

[–]maplehobo -1 points0 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

No it doesn't, if I work harder why should I spend that hard earned money on single mothers?

[–]Here4thebeer3232No Pill 4 points5 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Men make more money on average, therefore they pay more in taxes. But that means they still have more money in their pockets.

Hardly any of those sweet government dollars goes to single mothers. I dont understand this meme. More of your money goes to build fancy warships and paying off government debt. If the life of being single mother was so great then why are half of them below the poverty line?

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I dont understand this meme. More of your money goes to build fancy warships and paying off government debt.

THANK YOU.

If these people really cared about taxes, they'd be campaigning to streamline the comically bloated military budget. Aid to the poor costs practically none of your tax dollars.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Are you referring to social security? Because that sure isn't supporting any infants....and given that it's an entitlement, it's hardly "aid to the poor" at all.

That said, I don't really care about percentages--we are spending TEN TIMES AS MUCH MONEY as the next-highest military spender (China), primarily to subsidize other countries so that they can be strong-armed into supporting our foreign escapades. I oppose this. Let Europeans and Japan have their own armies.

[–]------__------------ -1 points0 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

It's still something for nothing

I wish I could prioritize my hobbies above all else in life and get money from the government for it

[–]Here4thebeer3232No Pill 3 points4 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Certain hobbies are tax deductible. Maybe you just need to pick different hobbies.

And everyone always makes welfare seem like such a sweet gig. But then tried their hardest to ever avoid being so poor to be eligible for them. And that's because we all know being on welfare sucks. It gives you enough money to not die, and that's about it. I have yet to meet a person in poverty who loved where there life was. And I somehow doubt most single mothers are making that much of a profit on their kids. Mouths to feed and backs to cloth are not cheap, especially when the clothes are too small after a few months.

[–]maplehobo -1 points0 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

And that's because we all know being on welfare sucks. It gives you enough money to not die, and that's about it.

Well what else do you want? Why should ANYBODY pay for someone's mistake/decision? Men are already the biggest tax contributors and are the less benefited from it.

[–]xKalistoYuropean SAHM -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well why do you spend it on bombing the Middle East?

[–]maplehobo 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Who says I support that? Anyways, the issue I'm talking about is single mothers. Try to stay on topic

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I'd rather drop bombs on brown people I have never seen than see men being killed in my neighbourhood due to higher taxes. So yeah, priorities. No surprise Swedish women love those refuges who then rape them. You are great example of this.

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Who exactly is being killed due to higher taxes?

Also, the rape stats in Sweden have everything to do with their definition of rape/reporting procedures (hint: it's not that number of rapes increased, it's rapes reported. Same thing exists with sex trafficking stats in decrim countries). Not refugees, genius.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Who exactly is being killed due to higher taxes?

Not exactly. But time/money stolen still have an affect on individuals life.

it's not that number of rapes increased, it's rapes reported

lol do you even read what you are saying? Rapes reported increased doesn't mean actual rapes? Like wtf?

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Rapes reported increased doesn't mean actual rapes? Like wtf?

No, it doesn't. It's like how a country where abortions are illegal might log their abortion rate as "zero"--because the government doesn't have access to stats on abortions performed illegally. Plenty of times someone is raped, they don't report it. Sweden changed their reporting policy/procedure, so more rape victims started reporting. Thus, even though the same number of rapes were happening, more were being reported.

This isn't difficult to understand.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thus, even though the same number of rapes were happening

how do YOU know? If they did not get reported before?

[–]maplehobo -3 points-2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men pay substantially more taxes than women and benefit substantially less.

[–]raptorrage 7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

And when a guy paper aborts, who do you think will end up picking up the tab?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And when a guy paper aborts, who do you think will end up picking up the tab?

not his problem. Yeah, taxes suck, we all know that. The point is to make WOMEN do responsible choices. Without paper abortions, they are running amok

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In my view, no one. You're born who you're born to and you get whatever life she can provide for you. Child support laws were made in a time when women couldn't really work, lacked personhood when unmarried, didn't have the options of birth control and abortion (or even, since you don't need to be married anymore, just not having sex altogether).

Them days are over

[–]eurydice666 3 points4 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Oh so the guy can’t make mistakes? Yeah guys never irresponsibly go raw πŸ€” always the slutty wamens fault

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

so the guy can’t make mistakes? Yeah guys never irresponsibly

nobody said anything about guys not being able to make mistakes. Quit putting words in my mouth, ok? The thing is, women tend not to accept responsibility for their mistakes. And in terms of pregnancy, since women have ABSOLUTE control over their bodies, it is their mistake and only theirs.

So accept it, or keep dwelling in this misandrist worldview.

[–]eurydice666 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

You said dealing with a sluts mistake. It’s pretty implied that you didn’t think it would be a mans mistake, (although it’s the mans fault you would have to pay for it as it is his decision to have the financial abortion).

Men also have complete control over their nut, lol, it is their mistake and only theirs.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Yes and they can withdraw their consent to impregnate. Soo... the only way to do that is with paper. Obviously paper abortion makes you uncomfortable since then women would lose the power.

[–]eurydice666 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

No. It makes me uncomfortable that someone would like to not care for their own children.

And lol they can’t withdraw their consent to impregnate are you living in the real world? You give β€œβ€β€β€consent”””” to impregnate once you stick your dick in the correct reproductive organs

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

It makes me uncomfortable

tough luck, get used to it. Men got used to women having a right to their bodies (and thus ability to abort fetus even against father's wishes) so get used to fathers ability to financially abort the child. You either accept consent as necessary or not. You can NOT have it both ways. If fathers consent to have children by impregnating a woman, then by the same logic a woman can not abort a child under no circumstances and thus a father has a say on what she is able to do with her body. So either abortions and paper abortions or no abortions at all. You can not have it both ways.

You give β€œβ€β€β€consent”””” to impregnate once you stick your dick in the correct reproductive organs

glad you understand this. So a woman CAN NOT commit an abortion because a father consented to have a child and thus the child must be born. Otherwise you have a contradiction. And that's because you want all the power over men. And all the privileges for you.

[–]eurydice666 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I’m against abortions so...yup, that’s how it works. Afraid you are barking up the wrong tree lol

Despite this I still can clearly see the difference between aborting a FETUS and β€œaborting” a CHILD.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok so you are against abortion. We are on the same page then.

[–]Here4thebeer3232No Pill 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

We already have a lesser version of that in the form of tax breaks.

If we had something more robust, like a state sponsored day care system for all children I think that would benefit ALL Americans, not just single mothers.

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

a state sponsored day care system for all children

TBH, that would just be an expansion of the public school system and sounds like a great idea.

[–]xKalistoYuropean SAHM 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ideally US would grow up and get maternity like the rest of us. It's great guys, really, that's why everybody else does it.

We have maternity then parental leave that is directly followed by kindergarden 10/10 would reccomend.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Iinteresting. But isn't that what welfare is already?

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, in the United States the welfare system was drastically scaled back in the 1990s, and moreover, was NEVER tied to childcare. The closest to state-sponsored child benefits the US currently has is something like WIC, which is a food assistance program, but even that is only for pregnant women and very young children, and certainly doesn't cover things like diapers, clothes, a bed, school supplies....

[–]JohnnyElBravo -2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

state-funded child support

This is in the utopic realm.

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Or Europe.

[–]Alth12Purple Pill Man 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Not really. Father's still pay support in most if not all of Europe, even in France for example, if you know the child that's born isn't yours. A white couple has a mixed race baby? The government doesn't care, The cuckold is stuck with paying support until the child turns 18. Biodad gets away free, especially as paternity testing is illegal.

Granted the government's generally pick up the bulk of the support but that is actually becomming less and less. Governments are realizing some women are gaming the generous system. I think it's a 3 child limit now on support from the state in many countries here.

[–]sadomasochristNo pull out game 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This isn't true. There's still a court process for this according to the few Frenchies who have posted about this.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (33 children) | Copy Link

What was said in these comments that could not be applied to condoms?

[–][deleted]  (32 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (31 children) | Copy Link

Unprotected means no birth control at all. Condoms are birth control.

[–][deleted]  (30 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman 13 points14 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Having sex while on birth control but without condoms is generally referred to as unprotected sex.

Um, dude, it's definitely not. Birth control pills are protection - it's even used in the vernacular in some places, 'are you on protection?'. what it isn't is barrier protection, so doesn't protect against STIs.

Unprotected sex is when you need to take emergency contraception/morning after pill/Plan B. Look at any medical provider advice and you'll see this terminology used.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Apparently the CDC changed it's definition in 2014. Unprotected sex was defined by them as sex without a condom until then. I am referring to sex without a condom because that's the thing that feels good and is the point I'm getting at.

https://rewire.news/article/2014/02/24/cdc-stopped-calling-sex-without-condom-unprotected-sex/

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman 9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm in the UK and we've called it protected for like forty years. But even last time I was working in a US hospital it was referred to as protected.

Call it condomless sex/bareback/whatever you want that is correct, just please don't call sex on the pill unprotected as it confuses the situation. Doctors and other health professionals giving advice refer very specifically to when you are and aren't unprotected when using the pill so referring to the whole usage as unprotected is a mess.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

You have such a poor understanding of birth control and general sex practices. Can I ask in what state you recieved sex ed?

Hormonal birth control is a medication that causes side effects, and condoms don't feel as good as raw. Therefore, no one gets to enjoy unprotected sex without some unpleasant compromises. Almost all rational adults agree that a few bothersome side effects and/or dulled sensation is preferable to unplanned pregnancy.

Give up the idea that truly risk free, unprotected sex with no compromise is a thing. It is impossible.

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

WRONG. Women get yo enjoy it, "unprotected sex" with unpleasant compromises, while men must be willing to risk life alterinng/destroying compromsies for it. False. Equivalence.

Or he can wear a condom, get a vasectomy, or use pull out.

Oh and, did they teach you about nonhormonal IUDs in your sex Ed or should I make some.snarky comment?

Non hormonal IUDs have side effects, dude. Some of them are much more serious than traditional b.c. ans can result in permanent injury and infertility. Educate yourself.

False equivalence. If the magnitude of the pleasure weren't the winner here vetwren the two so many women (who fell asleep in sexed on the day they covered nohormonaL IUDs) wouldn't put up with the side effects, and there wouldn't have been so many abortions.

Again, non hormonal IUDs have side effects. Many women aren't even medically cleared to have them, myself included.

Are you aware of the myriad of reasons hormonal birth control is prescribed other than preventing pregnancy? Would you he intrested to know that most women go on the medication primarily for menstrual issues?

The scenario of having it available with unpleasant side effects is much preferable to the scenario of only having it available under penalty of life destroying/altering consequences, and your outsize concern for your own gender specific well being doesn't alter reality.

Men are empowered to not ruin their own lives by making reckless decisions. They have options.

Here's some info on copper IUDs, since you apparently fell asleep during that part of your sex ed class

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/paragard/about/pac-20391270

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women can have the far more pleasurable sex and not have life destroying baby result.

So can men, if they are careful

or use pull out.

Not reliable at all.

Pretty fucking reliable, especially when pairing with the rhythm method

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/withdrawal-pull-out-method/how-effective-is-withdrawal-method-pulling-out

Look,.whatever the downsides are, they are apparently worth the pleasure of condomless sex because women are buying these products and using them.

Just like people are buying and using condoms.

No one wants to do it. We do it because it's better than the alternative.

[–][deleted]  (21 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

There is no such thing as birth control medication without side effects (other than condoms).

It's amazing that people don't understand that different forms of birth control are simply different methods of delivering the same medication.

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's amazing that people don't understand that different forms of birth control are simply different methods of delivering the same medication.

There are variations actually. Some pills are progestin-only, others combined, and the copper IUD isn't hormonal at all.

[–][deleted]  (18 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

If a woman cannot or will not take birth control, her options are abstinence, risking pregnancy, or finding literally any guy on earth other than you who will fuck her with a condom.

Enjoy your STIs

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

If a woman cannot or will not take birth control, her options are abstinence, risking pregnancy, or finding literally any guy on earth other than you who will fuck her with a condom.

Ohh darn you think my desire for equality makes me an unworthy condomless sex partner. Funny,.a lot of guys hate fucking feminists too. All good.

Enjoy your STIs

Look through all your comments. I've never once attacked you. Do you see all the things you've said to me just because I disagreed with you? You're not a good person, and no amount of sex can fix that.

[–]flamingoinghomeIs three lizards in trench coat 10 points11 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

as far as I'm concerned sex with a condom is tantamount to abstinence. It's worse than not having sex at all.

Uh, dude, I think you're in a pretty extreme minority here. I don't have sex without condoms (ever), and amazingly, I've never had someone say "oh, well in that case, let's just forget it."

[–]SizzleFrazz 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Same! On the flip side, I have absolutely stopped mid hook up and put my clothes back on and refused sex even though I was the initiator and super horny because the dude didn’t have a condom and im not willing to risk ruining the entire fucking rest of my life over a single orgasm that apparently couldn’t wait until a different time when a condom is available.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Uh, dude, I think you're in a pretty extreme minority here.

You're the extreme minority

So what to make of the fact that some women don’t like dicks wrapped in latex either? We know why men don’t like them; they have not shut up about it since time immemorial. β€œPerhaps the most universal truth shared by men across the planet is that they hate wearing condoms,” condom maker Danny ResnicΒ toldΒ Men’s HealthΒ in 2014

https://www.google.com/amp/s/melmagazine.com/en-us/story/women-do-the-same-stuff-as-men-to-avoid-using-condoms/amp

[–]xKalistoYuropean SAHM 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't know if every guy would agree but as far as I'm concerned sex with a condom is tantamount to abstinence.

Well I asked...

"Hey husband is sex without condom more pleasurable?"

husband walks around a bit "Eeeeeeeh.......I guess?"

Yeah he didn't sound so confident about that terrible abstinence effect.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Your sample size is the same as mine.

So:

So what to make of the fact that some women don’t like dicks wrapped in latex either? We know why men don’t like them; they have not shut up about it since time immemorial. β€œPerhaps the most universal truth shared by men across the planet is that they hate wearing condoms,” condom maker Danny ResnicΒ toldΒ Men’s HealthΒ in 2014.

Men and women are more alike than we think, and that’s not always a good thing. Apparently, women resort to the same rascal’s bag of tricks to avoid using rubbers as dudes. New research published this month inΒ TheΒ Journal of Sex ResearchΒ found that almost half of the 235 women surveyed (aged 18 to 21, asked about their sex life beginning at age 14) admitted to seduction, deception and/or sabotage in order to avoid having sex with a bagged peen.Β 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/melmagazine.com/en-us/story/women-do-the-same-stuff-as-men-to-avoid-using-condoms/amph

[–]Gravel_RoadsJust a Pill 14 points15 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

Men and women should both use birth control if they don't want babies.

Condoms aren't that bad, jesus. Try having sex at all before you start worrying.

[–]EastussΰΌΌ ぀ β–€ΜΏ_β–€ΜΏ ༽぀ 4 points5 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Condoms are shit, female condoms are way better yet it isn't even common, it's super expensive, and women don't want to use it.

[–]Gravel_RoadsJust a Pill 6 points7 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

o my god have you ever sat and waited for a woman to try and position a female condom? Do you even know where a female condom goes? Do you think you would know how to position one? They don't exactly teach it in school. Condoms can just be slapped right on, no fuss no muss, and you can flush it right down the toilet afterwards.

[–]EastussΰΌΌ ぀ β–€ΜΏ_β–€ΜΏ ༽぀ 0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

o my god have you ever sat and waited for a woman to try and position a female condom?

yes. There were free female condoms once at a nightclub, we took some of them, and few minutes after none were left, sound like some people do value them.

I found that the sensation was a lot better and my wife said hers wasn't so much impacted.

Do you even know where a female condom goes?

I don't know where she put the ring. I guess you put it in there then you pray that the dick pushes it around the cervix and not on it.

Do you think you would know how to position one?

My wife found and said it wasn't so complex, however I agree this is not newbies. She also uses menstrual cups so it wasn't her first ride with putting weird shit like that inside.

They don't exactly teach it in school. Condoms can just be slapped right on, no fuss no muss,

In school they teach you how to put a condom on a circumcised penis, which is weird since it only concerns a minority of europeans... Male condoms are a mess, I tried a lot of them before finding a good brand and a good fit. When I was 14 year old the free condom they distributed would basically squeeze my dick into loosing erection, and the worst about it is that lot of people make fun of it "I can put a condom on my arm you can put any size on your dick", there are no bones on my dick :p

and you can flush it right down the toilet afterwards.

omg don't @____@

[–]Gravel_RoadsJust a Pill 1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

You using the wrong size of condom bro

[–]EastussΰΌΌ ぀ β–€ΜΏ_β–€ΜΏ ༽぀ 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

I tried a lot of them before finding a good brand and a good fit.

Did you miss that part?

[–]Gravel_RoadsJust a Pill 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

You must have really delicate skin or something. I know one guy who has a latex allergy, so he pays a little extra for better quality material.

[–]EastussΰΌΌ ぀ β–€ΜΏ_β–€ΜΏ ༽぀ 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

I may have a bit more foreskin than the average male and that would def be an issue. However, disliking condom is not a rare thing for men.

[–]Gravel_RoadsJust a Pill 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Nor is disliking STI’s. I’m not saying things don’t feel β€œbetter” without condoms, I’m just saying nothing feels good when you have herpes, which last considerably longer than that moment of pleasure during orgasm. Some people consider it worth the risk. I just don’t, and because my relationships are open, I will never court people who don’t. For me, the anxiety about my health would overshadow any extra fleeting pleasure I might feel.

[–]EastussΰΌΌ ぀ β–€ΜΏ_β–€ΜΏ ༽぀ -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I forgot, weren't we talking about female condoms and not about catching STIs?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Condoms aren't that bad, jesus.

It's better to not have sex.

Try having sex at all before you start worrying.

If you think condoms aren't that bad I'm gonna have to offer you the same advice.

[–]Gravel_RoadsJust a Pill 8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

My LTR and I don't...? But when I'm with strangers, you bet your boots I do. I've managed to go 34 years of my life not getting a venereal disease, even with an open relationship, because my partner and I are protective of each other's health. We seem to have very different ideas of acceptable Risk to Reward ratio.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

We seem to have very different ideas of acceptable Risk to Reward ratio.

Many possess my ratio rather than yours, men and women.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/melmagazine.com/en-us/story/women-do-the-same-stuff-as-men-to-avoid-using-condoms/amp

The difference is that we artificially impose a higher subsequent risk ratio on men than women arising fom the same reckless act.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Condoms aren't that bad, jesus

nah thats just not true, raw dogging and dropping a load deep inside is infinitely more satisfying (for obvious reasons)

[–]Gravel_RoadsJust a Pill 6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I guess I put more importance on peace of mind. My LTR and I plan to live a very long time.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

But as a woman you could choose not to put more weight on peace of mind and not be burdened with the possibility of involuntarily incurring a lifelong obligation arising out of a momentary act of recklessness. That same ability to choose MUST be accorded men if we are to have meaningful equality, and paper abortion is the way to do it.

[–]Gravel_RoadsJust a Pill 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I’m a bisexual man

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

My apologies

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Condoms aren't that bad, jesus

nah thats just not true, raw dogging and dropping a load deep inside is infinitely more satisfying (for obvious reasons)

ITT: people pretending they don't know that it feels better

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✑️🐈✑️ the purring jew 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

im curious why what the CDC defines as "unprotected sex" is important to mention here?

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Someone in the comments took issue with my using "condomless sex" and "unprotected sex" interchangably.

[–]xKalistoYuropean SAHM 5 points6 points  (60 children) | Copy Link

Hormonal birth control is protected sex (from babies).

Your 'implied' is BS. You just wanna bang chicks w/o gum.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (52 children) | Copy Link

So we're clear you're saying women don't get on birth control to facilitate having sex without a condom

[–]xKalistoYuropean SAHM 10 points11 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

Depends. With my long term SO yeah, and he paid for half. But short term condoms are more convenient.

I would always insist on condom with some rando cause hello STI.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (25 children) | Copy Link

Depends. With my long term SO yeah, and he paid for half. But short term condoms are more convenient. I would always insist on condom with some rando cause hello STI.

How nice. Choices. Something that men could also have.

In a world where pregnancy is completely optional, the woman's right to choose it sacrosanct, what possible justification can there be for not giving men the same autonomy over their lives?

[–]Willow-girlACAB (All Cows Are Beautiful) 7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Because once the baby's born, someone has to support it, and if the mother is insufficient to the task, the choice comes down to the sperm donor or the taxpayer. In which it seems more fair to make the sperm donor ante up ... he at least got a screw out of the deal, while the taxpayer didn't get so much as a kiss.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

comes down to the sperm donor or the taxpayer.

Abolish welfare. If the woman can't feed her kid the kid is put up for adoption on the ground of neglect.

he at least got a screw out of the deal, while the taxpayer didn't get so much as a kiss.

What about people without access to sex funding free birth control through their tax dollars? In what way is the logic different?

[–]Willow-girlACAB (All Cows Are Beautiful) 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd be OK with abolishing child support as long as we can get rid of welfare, too. I agree with your premise -- put it all on the woman and if she doesn't want to shoulder the burden, she can abort, put the kid up for adoption or just be very careful with birth control in the first place.

While such a system sounds cruel, it would probably be kinder than the one we have now, which provides only a safety net with huge holes in it. Women who have kids expecting their sperm donors to stick around or the government to help them out are often in for a rude awakening!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Si se puede!

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Because once the baby's born, someone has to support it

lol nah it can starve too

[–]xKalistoYuropean SAHM 9 points10 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

Men have reproductive choices too, you just don't like them.

I'm ethically for paper abortion given conditions that women have, but your reasoning around birth control is nonsense.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (18 children) | Copy Link

you just don't like them.

The surrounding framework is needlessly unfair and unjust. If the framework enables.women to enjoy the extremely elevated pleasure of condomless sex while absolving them of the burden of child, equality DEMANDS that reasonable steps be taken to.enable men to enjoy the same freedom. Paper abortion is just such a reasonable step.

I'm ethically for paper abortion given conditions that women have

Si se puede

but your reasoning around birth control is nonsense.

Do tell

[–]Willow-girlACAB (All Cows Are Beautiful) 13 points14 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

If the framework requires pregnant women to experience indignities like morning sickness, hemorrhoids, gestational diabetes and an episiotomy during delivery, we must inflict similar injuries upon men in the name of EQUALITY! But don't worry, we'll put a 'honeymoon stitch' in your asshole so it will be just as tight as when it was new, lol.

[–]xKalistoYuropean SAHM 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Male contraceptive pill should come with the benefit of peeing blood and ball cramps 7 days a month. Hey equality!

I think they'd be happy to opt for condom.

Gosh I've been period free for almost a year and it's such a blessing. It's gonna be such a pain after I stop breastfeeding.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If the framework requires pregnant women to experience indignities like morning sickness, hemorrhoids, gestational diabetes and an episiotomy during delivery

Going through all that is a choice; the legality and availability of alternatives makes it 100% a choice luxury to go through that.

But don't worry, we'll put a 'honeymoon stitch' in your asshole so it will be just as tight as when it was new, lol.

So you can take your "muh labor pains" and shove it up your used up asshole lol

[–]xKalistoYuropean SAHM 4 points5 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

extremely elevated pleasure of condomless sex

LOL, I would hardly describe it as extremely elevated. Sex without condom is convenient because of all the faffing around condom before the sex but I sure don't have it for 'extremely elevated pleasure'.

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

To be honest, I mildly prefer condom sex as a woman. It doesn't actually feel any different to me, if anything mildly better because of the lube, and I don't have to deal with the mess afterwards.

For me, I was on the pill for medical reasons at age 15, so I didn't choose to go on it for contraceptive reasons, and my OH far prefers condomless so it wasn't a big deal to go there after a few months and some STI checks. But if it was purely down to me, I'd probably stick with condoms.

[–]Willow-girlACAB (All Cows Are Beautiful) 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, what happened to 'ribbed for her pleasure'? LOL

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas 1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Sex is definitely 1000x better without condoms, no arguing it. Deadass id rather jerk off than fuck with condoms

[–]eaazzy_13 3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Especially if it’s a partner edit: youre with for any extended period of time. Imagine fucking your live in girlfriend with a rubber every single time, every single day for years. I’d fucking go crazy

Edit: condomless sex is a necessity in any LTR. Don’t @ me

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Condomless sex is husband privileges. Boyfriends use condoms. That's always been my policy.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Many others feel feel very differently, men and women.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/melmagazine.com/en-us/story/women-do-the-same-stuff-as-men-to-avoid-using-condoms/amp

[–]xKalistoYuropean SAHM 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Many others are idiots with chlamydia.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Many others are idiots with chlamydia.

That's the only way your life of neurotic care and paranoia and sacrifice in this regard would be have any meaning. Otherwise you're just wasting it for nothing.

[–]SizzleFrazz 3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Uhhh yeah even if I’m on birth control, I still would make a sex partner wear a condom because I’m also not trying to run the risk of contracting any kind of disease. And even when in LTR where there’s been trust built and disease risk is mitigated by monogamy preventing std exposure... I still never, ever, have let my partner finish inside of me. Like, it flabbergasts me that people can be at all surprised when they end up with an unplanned unintentional pregnancy and it’s like well why are you fucking cumming inside your partner when you know you want to avoid potentially getting pregnant? Like even with condoms, the failure rates cited are with perfect use, and perfect use means the condom was used by following the products listed instructions as listed on its directions verbatim, exactly as it says to, everytime. And those instructions listed in the label for perfect use specifically state that your supposed to withdraw the penis still fully covered with the condom, before ejaculating. Condom use as the only or main contraceptive method users are relying on for preventing pregnancy is only as effective as the the user is, meaning the less strictly you abide by the instructional method of use, the higher your risk is for contraceptive failure

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Uhhh yeah even if I’m on birth control, I still would make a sex partner wear a condom because I’m also not trying to run the risk of contracting any kind of disease.

*You", but not many other women, especially when turned on (men too),

https://www.google.com/amp/s/melmagazine.com/en-us/story/women-do-the-same-stuff-as-men-to-avoid-using-condoms/amp

but while both face STD risk only the man faces the prospect of having a life destroying/altering consequence from a single reckless act while women have choices.

And even when in LTR where there’s been trust built and disease risk is mitigated by monogamy preventing std exposure... I still never, ever, have let my partner finish inside of me.

See above. You're an exception, and even if you weren't, to do otherwise (let him finish without fear is going to lead to a lifetime obligation to a child without your say) is a choice available to you and to women generally, one that isn't available to men. It MUST BE made available to maintain any pretense of gender equality.

Like, it flabbergasts me that people can be at all surprised when they end up with an unplanned unintentional pregnancy and it’s like well why are you fucking cumming inside your partner when you know you want to avoid potentially getting pregnant?

Because it feels good. That's why women indulge despite the risk. That's why men indulge despite the risk. But we're punishing men only with the prospect of a lifetime obligation in which they have no say arising out of a single reckless act.

[–]SizzleFrazz 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Listen people(both men and women) can have irresponsible sex now, and run the risks of being responsible for any resulting consequences; or you can have responsible sex and therefore avoid the risk of the unwanted resulting consequence existing entirely. But you can’t choose to knowingly and intentionally participate in irresponsible sex and also get immunity from having personal responsibility to any potential consequences that may result from your irresponsible actions causing it it occur in the first place. It’s the same in every area of life where we engage in behavior and actions that have potential risks of causing negative, unintentional, or unwanted outcomes; drive responsibly so that you don’t have to pay for the damages resulting from a car accident you might cause while engaging in reckless driving; or drive recklessly and know that you are doing so with the knowledge that you will be responsible for any legal and financial consequences that can result if you are involved in a car accident due to your choice to be irresponsible behind the wheel. You don’t get to say β€œwell I want to be able to drive my vehicle irresponsibly and I also I want to not have to be responsible for what happens if my reckless driving leads to me hitting another car.”

Either way both parties have to decide what consequences they are willing to run the risk of liability in exchange for the opportunity of engaging unrestricted in the primary risk-based behavior in question. It’s a question of do you want to be responsible in how you first act now so that you won’t run the risks of there even being any future resulting consequences un the first place, or would you rather get to participate in an action without taking precautions first while engaging in the activity to avoid those potential outcomes knowing that if that outcome occurs then you are responsible for whatever occurs.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Listen people(both men and women) can have irresponsible sex now, and run the risks of being responsible for any resulting consequences; or you can have responsible sex and therefore avoid the risk of the unwanted resulting consequence existing entirely. But you can’t choose to knowingly and intentionally participate in irresponsible sex and also get immunity from having personal responsibility to any potential consequences that may result from your irresponsible actions causing it it occur in the first place.

But thats what women have now in this regard. Equality demands that the same freedom be made available to men.

It’s the same in every area of life where we engage in behavior and actions that have potential risks of causing negative, unintentional, or unwanted outcomes; drive responsibly so that you don’t have to pay for the damages resulting from a car accident you might cause while engaging in reckless driving; or drive recklessly and know that you are doing so with the knowledge that you will be responsible for any legal and financial consequences that can result if you are involved in a car accident due to your choice to be irresponsible behind the wheel. You don’t get to say β€œwell I want to be able to drive my vehicle irresponsibly and I also I want to not have to be responsible for what happens if my reckless driving leads to me hitting another car.”

But we're artifically allocating risk to men while freeing women to engage in said recklessness due to options being available to them. Give men the same options. It's not perfect for either but parity in this regard is a firm prerequisite to any meaningful conception of equality.

Either way both parties have to decide what consequences they are willing to run the risk of liability in exchange for the opportunity of engaging unrestricted in the primary risk-based behavior in question.

The current framework doesn't let the parties decide. It lets women have freedom and options, and imposes vastly disproportionate, involuntary burdens on the man.

you want to be responsible in how you first act now so that you won’t run the risks of there even being any future resulting consequences un the first place, or would you rather get to participate in an action without taking precautions first while engaging in the activity to avoid those potential outcomes knowing that if that outcome occurs then you are responsible for whatever occurs.

Women aren't being forced to sacrifice pleasure to avoid destroying their lives. Men MUST be accorded that same freedom.

[–]SizzleFrazz 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Okay so you’re assuming that having to have an abortion isn’t one of those consequences which she is now having to be responsible to obtain a costly medical procedure that has very serious long time physical and psychological side effects.

That’s not getting to benefit from getting to engage carelessly in risky sex and also getting escape any responsibility of consequences... that is her facing one of many potential consequences both she and the partner signed up for.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

But she has the choice to avoid the lifelong obligation . That's the difference.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

You VASTLY underestimate the amount of women who take birth control for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Those reasons on the Twitter hashtag all refer to their career and education not being interrupted, so it sounds to me like your angle is to VASTLY overestimate that population for the convenience of your argument, and further fails to take into account that those alternative reasons might be additional to the reason I proffered in many instances.

[–]SizzleFrazz 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Birth control is the only treatment (besides surgical sterilization which is a major invasive surgery) for endometriosis; a condition which the symptoms are often so severe that medication treatment is necessary for managing the condition and providing symptom relief in sufferers. This disease is completely manageable when treated but when left untreated can be a life debilitating disease that prevents them from the ability to function in every day life making them unable to attend class or work for on average an entire work week each month, every month, impacting the sufferer from the ages of puberty all the way to menopause; that’s roughly from primary school aged pre adolescence all the way up to later middle age around average retirement age. That means having access to the medication necessary for treating the disease drastically impacts their educational and career accessibility. (which the BC pills are the only known prescription medication that has been shown to be effective in treating endo. ) BC provides women the ability to not have their education and careers interrupted or limited in more ways than just avoiding or delaying pregnancy in child bearing years.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Birth control is the only treatment (besides surgical sterilization which is a major invasive surgery) for endometriosis; a condition which the symptoms are often so severe that medication treatment is necessary for managing the condition and providing symptom relief in sufferers. This disease is completely manageable when treated but when left untreated can be a life debilitating disease that prevents them from the ability to function in every day life making them unable to attend class or work for on average an entire work week each month, every month, impacting the sufferer from the ages of puberty all the way to menopause; that’s roughly from primary school aged pre adolescence all the way up to later middle age around average retirement age. That means having access to the medication necessary for treating the disease drastically impacts their educational and career accessibility. (which the BC pills are the only known prescription medication that has been shown to be effective in treating endo. ) BC provides women the ability to not have their education and careers interrupted or limited in more ways than just avoiding or delaying pregnancy in child bearing years.

Yeah, not all of them are talking about endo. At least one of the thousands of them who posted is talking about condomless sex. Otherwise it would be #endo day. It's regardless an option available to them. And the carefree indulgence you're isn't available to men under the current regime. Accordingly, it needs to be rectified asap.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

All of that applies to condoms as well. All of it.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Except that condoms don't allow you to enjoy the pleasure of condomless sex, a freedom that birth control allows women to enjoy while empowering them.to.avoid life destroying/altering consequences

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

You do realize that hormonal birth control allows men to experience this too, right? Who are these women enjoying condomless sex with?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

You do realize that hormonal birth control allows men to experience this too, right? Who are these women enjoying condomless sex with?

Of course there's a corresponding man enjoyimg it, but the woman is able to without the worry of what steps the man has taken to avoid pregnancy. A man on the other hand does not have that peace of mind because in reality there's no way to know. So in short a woman knows what the worst case scenario.is (whether abortion, keep baby, decide then, whatever) allowing her that peace of mind, while the man is in the dark. Paper abortion puts men in parity.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

If he is wise and cautious, he will have that peace of mind.

I've never interacted with someone so hellbent on doing the stupidest, most irresponsible thing a person can possibly do without any consequences.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

If he is wise and cautious, he will have that peace of mind.

What the hell does that even mean? Women have certainty. With paper abortion men will have it too. End of story.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why would anyone admit this to you? Women are already have the option to do this, and men would avoid saying this to you to avoid your barrage of insults

[–]EastussΰΌΌ ぀ β–€ΜΏ_β–€ΜΏ ༽぀ -1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

What's wrong with wanting to bang people without consequence? That's literally why women take BC, that's literally why women want abortion to be allowed, and literally why they think all this should be handed free to them.

[–]frogsgoribbit737Purple Pill Woman 6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Most women take birth control because of reasons relating to their menstrual cycle actually. The majority are not on it to prevent pregnancy.

Mostly because it has such terrible side effects and condoms don't.

[–]EastussΰΌΌ ぀ β–€ΜΏ_β–€ΜΏ ༽぀ -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Not false but not "most" either.

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In women under 20 it most definitely is. After that, it definitely isn’t.

[–]xKalistoYuropean SAHM 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Sure and women who think they should get BC handed for free are delusional too.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to bang without consequence. But if there is a pregnancy there is already consequence. Abortion is supposed to be last resort for when "shit happens" it's not birth control.

[–]EastussΰΌΌ ぀ β–€ΜΏ_β–€ΜΏ ༽぀ 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

They're not so delusional: society goes by a great length to make all this possible and free for women, while men still have nothing but responsibilities and costs.

Abortion is supposed to be a last resort, not only women do view abortion as "empowering" but also men don't have this sort of safe net at all.

[–]xKalistoYuropean SAHM 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I do think that paper abortion with proper checks and balances (like female abortion) is fair. I simply object to the idea of equating it to birth control "cuz baggless banging feels better maaaan".

I don't opose the idea just OP's argument.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Unprotected against what? Pregnancy or diseases? I always assumed it was against diseases. That's why men need protection to not get an STD from random slut. America is really going bonkers if they try to change the definition to cater such sluts.

[–]MGTOWtoday 2 points3 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

Women have choices. Men have responsibilities. Because β€œequality”.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You don’t think having to take a pill every day or getting an implant or an IUD is a responsibility?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's a choice that enables consequence limited sex. Not having sex is also a choiceml. These responsibilities open up the greater freedom of the sex. If the freedom weren't greater women wouldn't go to the trouble.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women have been using herbs and concoctions to prevent conception and/or having abortions for as long as anyone can remember. The sexual drive is pretty strong. Edit: it’s just a lot safer and reliable now and people die less.

[–]tiposkY'all hoes need Jesus! God bless! 6 points7 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Men have choices. Don't stick your dick in crazy and if you do, wrap it up.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

But unlike in the case of women, men face the prospect of an involuntary, lifelong obligation if their crazy meter is inaccurate even once

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Women also face a lifelong obligation. She has to carry the baby, which causes changes to her body, she has to raise the kid and pay for food and diapers and whatever else.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Which birth control and abortion allow them to opt out of. That's my point. Women have a choice in whether the obligation is incurred. Without paper abortion men do not.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Not all women see abortion as an option. And birth control sometimes fails.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

"not seeing it as an option" for personal reasons is different from not having access to it as an option

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

There’s that too. Some states have few or no clinics. It is expensive to travel and then on top of that there is the cost of the procedure.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

There’s that too. Some states have few or no clinics. It is expensive to travel and then on top of that there is the cost of the procedure.

It ought to be made easily accessible and freely available, including geographic distribution. In tandem with paper abortion.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

So get a vasectomy, wear a condom, stick to prostitutes, go without sex (you'll survive), select better women, or stick to anal.

Condom sex still feels better than no sex at all.

People are pretending that condoms are like wrapping a cactus around the dick, even though male orgasm is expected and consistently happens.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

So get a vasectomy, wear a condom, stick to prostitutes, go without sex (you'll survive), select better women, or stick to anal.

Condom sex still feels better than no sex at all.

People are pretending that condoms are like wrapping a cactus around the dick, even though male orgasm is expected and consistently happens.

Women don't have to settle for these mediocre alternatives because they have choice. Equality DEMANDS that that choice be made available to men as well, through paper abortion.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Women can't get their tubes tied as easily as men can get snipped, and there is a lot of fear mongering and dismissal when it comes to IUDs in the US.

So "equality demands" that people stop trying to control women's bodies in the form of access to BC and abortion.

I am all for male pills, but your claims that it is some pressing injustice is batshit.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

and there is a lot of fear mongering and dismissal when it comes to IUDs in the US.

This is easily resolved through public education, and it's only a lack of will preventing it.

So "equality demands" that people stop trying to control women's bodies in the form of access to BC and abortion.

Equality ALSO demands that, but like any human, you'll care more about the thing that affects you. That's why men need to speak up more. That's why we are. And that's why the pendulum will swing. Everyone will benefit.

I am all for male pills, but your claims that it is some pressing injustice is batshit.

The oppressors never realize how powerful their power is

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I have never orgasmed using a condom. Not once. ~90% rate without one. But what guy will admit that when women think

male orgasm is expected and consistently happens.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Because it does happen consistently, and it's obvious because the condom either has a deposit or not. There are other ways to work with a partner to orgasm as well.

Get a gf or wife and have all the raw rides you can stand.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree that that is the smart option, but other options are available to women, and that is my point.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women have choices. Men have responsibilities. Because β€œequality”.

Society has to function however it does, but laws can be changed in a moment with the right choices on the ballot and motivated voters at the ballot box. The audience grows every day with a new child support case, a new pregnancy scare, and so on.

[–][deleted]  (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This comment is better suited for the automod.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No circle-jerking.

[–]AutoModerator[M] -1 points0 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]nemma8834/F/UK Married 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Soon, men will have their own BC pills and we will never have to have this debate again.

That time can not come soon enough for all of us.

[–]the_calibre_cat 7 points8 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Humankind will develop warp drive before men will get legal paternal abortion.

Tax cattle don't just get to up and leave the ranch.

[–]LadyoftheDamπŸ€·πŸ»β€β™€οΈ 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, this is simply a pipe dream. For how much people complain about the welfare state, there is no way the State is going to go for this. We can't fix any of our actual loomimg problems. The freedom of consequences for condomless sex are so far down the list, it's a meaningless proposition.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Tax cattle don't just get to up and leave the ranch.

It's all on the table now--things no one thought possible, all it takes is the ballot box

[–]the_calibre_cat 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

The thing with the ballot box is you have to win the vote. Women look out for each other, and men look out for women. There are men who can and do actively sell out their own gender interests for far less than what this plan offers... so yeah, sure, that's "all it takes."

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The thing with the ballot box is you have to win the vote. Women look out for each other, and men look out for women.

President Trump showed how, with the right person and the right arguments, you can inspire men to look out for each other and even women to look out for men in the limited context of an electoral setting.

There are men who can and do actively sell out their own gender interests for far less than what this plan offers... so yeah, sure, that's "all it takes."

Men don't like to whine, or to feel like they are signing on to whining. It makes them feel weak.

Unless, of course, the benefit to be gained outweighs that distaste, and is packaged and presented accordingly.

The 60s were only 50 years ago. And things change even more rapidly now with the internet.

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]the_calibre_cat 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

They're also like, turbo cucks and slaves to the feminist political ideology, so what I'm promising you is... they won't, and we will figure out all that pesky mass and energy and time related shit that's currently holding us back from building a viable, functional warp drive before this policy is ever implemented on Earth in a country that doesn't suck.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

Β© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter