Should single men have right to exploit women's bodies?

[New Owca]

Such obvious clickbait over a non-issue. Chessmistress has a history of twisting things to make it seem like the situation is worse than it it - mostly in the direction that "men are bad, women good".

But in answer to the question, if a woman wants to take money for a surrogacy, that's fine. A man wants kids but doesn't have a partner, so he and a woman enter an agreement where he pays her money and she carries his child? That's absolutely fine if both sides agree and consent.

[Ethel mermania]

The arguement ithey are forced by economic circumstances, you know like third world prostitution.

Holy crap, a valid argument! CM, where are you, can someone screenshot this for hyr? You're cool, EM, I'm just having some fun. But yes, I do think there is the possibility that surrogacy could be abused for personal short-term profits. It needs to be very closely managed to prevent abuse and should honestly only be employed by governments experiencing population shortfalls. Which honestly aren't many.

Tbh I don't have a problem with surrogacy. All labor to a point is exploiitive, no one would hire anyone if they were not making a profit off the hiree's labor. I don't think sex or surrogacy is any different than any other form of work in that regard.

[Thermodolia]

Chess what about same-sex couples? What about them?

[Gauthier]

Chess what about same-sex couples? What about them?

Something Something One Partner Really Wants To Be a Man/Woman Something Something Simulating Traditional Gender Power Dynamic Roles

[Chessmistress]

Chess what about same-sex couples? What about them?

The main customers for surrogacy aren't same-sex couples, but heterosexual couples.
So said: I oppose surrogacy, not gay rights - gays should be free to adopt just like heterosexual couples.
Surrogacy is very different from sperm donation: men's bodies aren't exploited and treated as objects while donating sperm.

[Chessmistress]

Surrogacy is roughly comparable to prostitution, Kasja Ekman, a Swedish Feminist, explains it very well both in her book and in such article
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... sweden-ban

This week, Sweden took a firm stand against surrogacy. The governmental inquiry on surrogacy published its conclusions, which the parliament is expected to approve later this year. These include banning all surrogacy, commercial as well as altruistic, and taking steps to prevent citizens from going to clinics abroad.

This is a ground-breaking decision, a true step forward for the women’s movement. Initially divided on the issue women came together and placed the issue higher up on the agenda. Earlier in February, feminist and human-rights activists from all over the world met in Paris to sign the charter against surrogacy, and the European Parliament has also called on states to ban it.

The major objections to the Swedish report have come from intended fathers, saying that if a woman wants to be a surrogate, surely it is wrong to prevent her from doing so. It is telling that few women cry over this missed opportunity. It is, after all, demand that fuels this industry.

Surrogacy may have been surrounded by an aura of Elton John-ish happiness, cute newborns and notions of the modern family, but behind that is an industry that buys and sells human life. Where babies are tailor-made to fit the desires of the world’s rich. Where a mother is nothing, deprived even of the right to be called “mum”, and the customer is everything. The west has started outsourcing reproduction to poorer nations, just as we outsourced industrial production previously. It is shocking to see how quickly the UN convention on the rights of the child can be completely ignored. No country allows the sale of human beings – yet, who cares, so long as we are served cute images of famous people and their newborns?

To save surrogacy from accusations like this, some resort to talking of so-called “altruistic” surrogacy. If the mother is not being paid, there is no exploitation going on. Maybe she is doing it out of generosity, for a friend, a daughter or a sister.

The Swedish inquiry refutes this argument. There is no proof, says the inquiry, that legalising “altruistic” surrogacy would do away with the commercial industry. International experience shows the opposite – citizens of countries such as the US or Britain, where the practice of surrogacy is widespread, tend to dominate among foreign buyers in India and Nepal. The inquiry also says that there is evidence that surrogates still get paid under the table, which is the case in Britain. One cannot, says the inquiry, expect a woman to sign away her rights to a baby she has not even seen nor got to know yet – this in itself denotes undue pressure.

This is her book
https://www.amazon.com/Being-Bought-Pro ... 1742198767

In reality, “altruistic” surrogacy means that a woman goes through exactly the same thing as in commercial surrogacy, but gets nothing in return. It demands of the woman to carry a child for nine months and then give it away. She has to change her behaviour and risk infertility, a number of pregnancy-related problems, and even death. She is still used as a vessel, even if told she is an angel. The only thing she gets is the halo of altruism, which is a very low price for the effort and can only be attractive in a society where women are valued for how much they sacrifice, not what they achieve.

[Community Values]

Chess what about same-sex couples? What about them?

The main customers for surrogacy aren't same-sex couples, but heterosexual couples.
So said: I oppose surrogacy, not gay rights - gays should be free to adopt just like heterosexual couples.
Surrogacy is very different from sperm donation: men's bodies aren't exploited and treated as objects while donating sperm.

If I was being forced to masturbate in a room for some woman I may not like, and I didn't want to have any offspring, how would I not feel like an object?

Anyways, the thing we are talking about, voluntary surrogacy, is voluntary, which means that these women choose. If I choose to donate to a sperm bank, even if it's degrading me, it's my choice.

Would you be implying that in a voluntary transaction, the woman does not have a choice?

[ChicagoBoys]

Surrogacy is roughly comparable to prostitution

So is sperm donation as it is literally performing a sex act, often for money. The thing is, both are volunatry prostitution. If prostitution is legal then people can, in theory, choose to be prostitutes on their own accord. It is their choice and to take that away from them because it clashes with what you believe is simply wrong and oppressive.

[Chessmistress]

The main customers for surrogacy aren't same-sex couples, but heterosexual couples.
So said: I oppose surrogacy, not gay rights - gays should be free to adopt just like heterosexual couples.
Surrogacy is very different from sperm donation: men's bodies aren't exploited and treated as objects while donating sperm.

If I was being forced to masturbate in a room for some woman I may not like, and I didn't want to have any offspring, how would I not feel like an object?

Anyways, the thing we are talking about, voluntary surrogacy, is voluntary, which means that these women choose. If I choose to donate to a sperm bank, even if it's degrading me, it's my choice.

Would you be implying that in a voluntary transaction, the woman does not have a choice?

I reject a comparison between surrogacy and sperm donation: such comparison is very offensive for women.
Sperm donation is totally different: men aren't exploited through sperm donation because they don't carry the baby in their bodies for 9 months.
Sperm donation should be free in all public hospitals, even for single women, that's an important part of the political program Feminist Initiative party.
None, in her right mind, would dare to compare sperm donation to prostitution, because those things are clearly very different, when instead there's a clear relation between surrogacy and prostitution
https://www.byline.com/project/43/article/861

Julie Bindel: Why do you think prostitution and surrogacy have so much in common?

KEK: They are both industries that exploit the female body in different ways, one for sex and the other for reproduction, industries where the female body is reduced to a commodity that is bought and sold. They are also industries that, if you want to get theoretical about it, are at the exact intersection with patriarchy and capitalism. In patriarchy women exist for men, and in capitalism the poor exist for the rich. So if you combine the two of these, you get prostitution and surrogacy.


JB: Have you ever been accused of being anti gay, because there are so many rich gay male couples now renting wombs?

KEK: The biggest group that uses surrogacy are not gay men, but the slogan nowadays is that ‘this is the way to create the modern family. But some will say that if you are against surrogacy, because gay couples cannot have children, that you are against them having kids. But I’m against it for what is does to women and children, not for who uses it. I don’t care who is using the services, but I care about who is being used

Worth noticing that Kasja Ekman was born in 1980: she's just only 36 yo, she represent the new generation of Feminists in one of the most Feminist countries of the world. Women will stop to being treated as chattel and exploited.

[Community Values]

If I was being forced to masturbate in a room for some woman I may not like, and I didn't want to have any offspring, how would I not feel like an object?

Anyways, the thing we are talking about, voluntary surrogacy, is voluntary, which means that these women choose. If I choose to donate to a sperm bank, even if it's degrading me, it's my choice.

Would you be implying that in a voluntary transaction, the woman does not have a choice?

I reject a comparison between surrogacy and sperm donation: such comparison is very offensive for women.
Sperm donation is totally different: men aren't exploited through sperm donation because they don't carry the baby in their bodies for 9 months.
Sperm donation should be free in all public hospitals, even for single women, that's an important part of the political program Feminist Initiative party.
None, in her right mind, would dare to compare sperm donation to prostitution, because those things are clearly very different, when instead there's a clear relation between surrogacy and prostitution
https://www.byline.com/project/43/article/861

Julie Bindel: Why do you think prostitution and surrogacy have so much in common?

KEK: They are both industries that exploit the female body in different ways, one for sex and the other for reproduction, industries where the female body is reduced to a commodity that is bought and sold. They are also industries that, if you want to get theoretical about it, are at the exact intersection with patriarchy and capitalism. In patriarchy women exist for men, and in capitalism the poor exist for the rich. So if you combine the two of these, you get prostitution and surrogacy.


JB: Have you ever been accused of being anti gay, because there are so many rich gay male couples now renting wombs?

KEK: The biggest group that uses surrogacy are not gay men, but the slogan nowadays is that ‘this is the way to create the modern family. But some will say that if you are against surrogacy, because gay couples cannot have children, that you are against them having kids. But I’m against it for what is does to women and children, not for who uses it. I don’t care who is using the services, but I care about who is being used

Worth noticing that Kasja Ekman was born in 1980: she's just only 36 yo, she represent the new generation of Feminists in one of the most Feminist countries of the world. Women will stop to being treated as chattel and exploited.

So, essentially, what you're saying, is that if I was being forced to give sperm to someone, I wouldn't be exploited? I get that surrogacy is much more of a commitment than sperm donation, but trying to say that sperm donation (even forced?) doesn't factor in to your argument at all, not even in the same category as surrogacy, is approaching delusion. Btw, what do you mean when you say sperm donation should be "free"? I'm getting a real Anthem vibe here...

Women aren't being treated as cattle because they have the choice to not have a surrogacy. It isn't a law in any country that women are forced to provide their wombs to men, and it shouldn't be.

[RFI]

I reject a comparison between surrogacy and sperm donation: such comparison is very offensive for women.
Sperm donation is totally different: men aren't exploited through sperm donation because they don't carry the baby in their bodies for 9 months.
Sperm donation should be free in all public hospitals, even for single women, that's an important part of the political program Feminist Initiative party.
None, in her right mind, would dare to compare sperm donation to prostitution, because those things are clearly very different, when instead there's a clear relation between surrogacy and prostitution
https://www.byline.com/project/43/article/861


Worth noticing that Kasja Ekman was born in 1980: she's just only 36 yo, she represent the new generation of Feminists in one of the most Feminist countries of the world. Women will stop to being treated as chattel and exploited.

So, essentially, what you're saying, is that if I was being forced to give sperm to someone, I wouldn't be exploited? I get that surrogacy is much more of a commitment than sperm donation, but trying to say that sperm donation (even forced?) doesn't factor in to your argument at all, not even in the same category as surrogacy, is approaching delusion. Btw, what do you mean when you say sperm donation should be "free"? I'm getting a real Anthem vibe here...

Women aren't being treated as cattle because they have the choice to not have a surrogacy. It isn't a law in any country that women are forced to provide their wombs to men, and it shouldn't be.

Nope.
Who is "forcing" men to donate sperm? Are you kidding?
"Forced" sperm donation would be exploitation of men, naturally.
But that isn't the case.
And, yes, sperm donation should be free, even and perhaps especially for single women: actually single women are 50% of the users of sperm donation in Denmark (sperm donation's world capital) while heterosexual couples are 30% and lesbian couples are 20%, and single women are projected to reach 70% by 2020.
However I'm glad that, at least, you understand that surrogacy is much more of a commitment than sperm donation.

[Prusselanden]

You mean have a paid surrogate?

Adopt, people. It's a good solution.

[Community Values]

So, essentially, what you're saying, is that if I was being forced to give sperm to someone, I wouldn't be exploited? I get that surrogacy is much more of a commitment than sperm donation, but trying to say that sperm donation (even forced?) doesn't factor in to your argument at all, not even in the same category as surrogacy, is approaching delusion. Btw, what do you mean when you say sperm donation should be "free"? I'm getting a real Anthem vibe here...

Women aren't being treated as cattle because they have the choice to not have a surrogacy. It isn't a law in any country that women are forced to provide their wombs to men, and it shouldn't be.

Nope.
Who is "forcing" men to donate sperm? Are you kidding?
"Forced" sperm donation would be exploitation of men, naturally.
But that isn't the case.
And, yes, sperm donation should be free, even and perhaps especially for single women: actually single women are 50% of the users of sperm donation in Denmark (sperm donation's world capital) while heterosexual couples are 30% and lesbian couples are 20%, and single women are projected to reach 70% by 2020.
However I'm glad that, at least, you understand that surrogacy is much more of a commitment than sperm donation.

No one's forced to become a sperm donor or a surrogate, but if you believe that there isn't a choice for women, even when clarified that there is a choice, who forces women to become surrogates? Is it the patriarchy? Society? Capitalism?

Sorry if I'm a bit misinformed here, but by wanting free sperm donation, do you want women to be able to get the sperm for free, or men to do this with no compensation? Both seem equally bad, since if the companies don't have the money from the women paying for the donor, they can't compensate the donor. Of course this means that the tab will be picked up by the government and our wonderful tax dollars will go to compensation for sperm donors. As for the other scenario, I'm sure I don't have to explain why men not getting compensation for donating sperm is bad, right?

And yeah, it is more of a commitment. It's also why surrogates get a lot more money for being a surrogate then men for being sperm donors. In fact, looking at the compensation they get, I'm starting to get a bit jealous.
http://www.spermbankdirectory.com/donating-sperm
https://www.conceiveabilities.com/surro ... mother-pay

[Community Values]

You mean have a paid surrogate?

Adopt, people. It's a good solution.

Someone still makes the babies.

[Ashmoria]

You mean have a paid surrogate?

Adopt, people. It's a good solution.

its a good solution for children who need families. its not a good solution for adults wanting offspring.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Feminists have been accused by the surrogacy lobby of "being against women self-determination."

Because they are against women's self-determination, if a woman makes the conscious choice to be a surrogate mother for someone else then that is their decision and their decision alone as long as they aren't being legitimately forced into it. I have a friend from high school who quite recently was a surrogate mother to a family, and she was happy and willing to do it, she wasn't "exploited by the evil patriarchy" into doing it.

[Galavance]

Chess what about same-sex couples? What about them?

The main customers for surrogacy aren't same-sex couples, but heterosexual couples.
So said: I oppose surrogacy, not gay rights - gays should be free to adopt just like heterosexual couples.
Surrogacy is very different from sperm donation: men's bodies aren't exploited and treated as objects while donating sperm.

Surrogacy is an agreement. The woman has to consent to it and if they don't, it doesn't happen, or if they don't and it does happen, the woman can abort and then destroy them with rape charges.

The fact that you're arguing a woman's choice and calling it 'exploitation' really just dampers any sort of feminist argument that you have. You're therefor advocating for the policing of their bodies while systematically trying to hide it with bombastic claims of 'fighting against exploitation of women'.

And I don't think you understand how sperm donating works. When a woman goes to choose sperm, she chooses from a catalogue. How is that NOT exploiting men? Because the sperm bank that I went to had pictures of the donors- I've heard women go 'His skin is too dark' 'He doesn't have blue eyes' 'He's too white for my taste'.

But oh no, that's not exploitation because they have a penis.

[Galloism]

Sperm donation is totally different: men aren't exploited through sperm donation because they don't carry the baby in their bodies for 9 months.

An irrelevant detail - both are being used for breeding purposes and being paid for their time. The amount of time is somewhat different.

(An interesting detail: sperm cell maturation takes about 3 months. You are using a man's body for 3 months when you collect his sperm.)

None, in her right mind, would dare to compare sperm donation to prostitution, because those things are clearly very different, when instead there's a clear relation between surrogacy and prostitution

However, you have also argued that prostitution is exploitation of women's bodies - the payment of a woman for engaging in a sex act constitutes exploitation.

However, masturbation is, at its core, a sex act - and therefore sperm donation is a form of prostitution, because men are compensated for performing a sex act for women's benefit, and this constitutes exploitation.


This is just another area where you demonstrate deep unequivocal sexism in your posts.


EDIT: gotta love the doublethink:

Sperm donation should be free in all public hospitals, even for single women, that's an important part of the political program Feminist Initiative party.

"Women who want to use men simply to reproduce should get government subsidies to do so! Men who want to use women simply to reproduce should be banned from reproducing because they're horrible misogynistic pigs who are exploiting women!"

Deep unequivocal sexism.

[Ethel mermania]

If I was being forced to masturbate in a room for some woman I may not like, and I didn't want to have any offspring, how would I not feel like an object?

Anyways, the thing we are talking about, voluntary surrogacy, is voluntary, which means that these women choose. If I choose to donate to a sperm bank, even if it's degrading me, it's my choice.

Would you be implying that in a voluntary transaction, the woman does not have a choice?

I reject a comparison between surrogacy and sperm donation: such comparison is very offensive for women.
Sperm donation is totally different: men aren't exploited through sperm donation because they don't carry the baby in their bodies for 9 months.
Sperm donation should be free in all public hospitals, even for single women, that's an important part of the political program Feminist Initiative party.
None, in her right mind, would dare to compare sperm donation to prostitution, because those things are clearly very different, when instead there's a clear relation between surrogacy and prostitution
https://www.byline.com/project/43/article/861

Julie Bindel: Why do you think prostitution and surrogacy have so much in common?

KEK: They are both industries that exploit the female body in different ways, one for sex and the other for reproduction, industries where the female body is reduced to a commodity that is bought and sold. They are also industries that, if you want to get theoretical about it, are at the exact intersection with patriarchy and capitalism. In patriarchy women exist for men, and in capitalism the poor exist for the rich. So if you combine the two of these, you get prostitution and surrogacy.


JB: Have you ever been accused of being anti gay, because there are so many rich gay male couples now renting wombs?

KEK: The biggest group that uses surrogacy are not gay men, but the slogan nowadays is that ‘this is the way to create the modern family. But some will say that if you are against surrogacy, because gay couples cannot have children, that you are against them having kids. But I’m against it for what is does to women and children, not for who uses it. I don’t care who is using the services, but I care about who is being used

Worth noticing that Kasja Ekman was born in 1980: she's just only 36 yo, she represent the new generation of Feminists in one of the most Feminist countries of the world. Women will stop to being treated as chattel and exploited.

You can reject it all 6ou want, in sperm acquisition as well as surrogacy. The being is being used for their sex, not how good a human being they are.

Yes surrogacy takes longer and is much more demanding, hence the amount of payments are different, but is all about sex.

[New haven america]

I'm personally glad we're keeping children women from consenting to an activity that helps both the family and surrogate objectifying and degrading themselves and their fellow women.

[New haven america]

Chess what about same-sex couples? What about them?

The main customers for surrogacy aren't same-sex couples, but heterosexual couples.
So said: I oppose surrogacy, not gay rights - gays should be free to adopt just like heterosexual couples.
Surrogacy is very different from sperm donation: men's bodies aren't exploited and treated as objects while donating sperm.

And neither are surrogates.

[New confederate ramenia]

No

[Salandriagado]

Chess what about same-sex couples? What about them?

The main customers for surrogacy aren't same-sex couples, but heterosexual couples.
So said: I oppose surrogacy, not gay rights - gays should be free to adopt just like heterosexual couples.
Surrogacy is very different from sperm donation: men's bodies aren't exploited and treated as objects while donating sperm.

How exactly is someone paying a woman to use their body to carry a foetus to term for them any different than someone paying a plumber to use their body to repair their sink?

[New confederate ramenia]

The main customers for surrogacy aren't same-sex couples, but heterosexual couples.
So said: I oppose surrogacy, not gay rights - gays should be free to adopt just like heterosexual couples.
Surrogacy is very different from sperm donation: men's bodies aren't exploited and treated as objects while donating sperm.

How exactly is someone paying a woman to use their body to carry a foetus to term for them any different than someone paying a plumber to use their body to repair their sink?

Holy shit the misogyny is real

[Salandriagado]

How exactly is someone paying a woman to use their body to carry a foetus to term for them any different than someone paying a plumber to use their body to repair their sink?

Holy shit the misogyny is real

Do you have an actual answer to the question?