Single rich guys getting snipped

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, it's just possible, and if it is possible, it has happened, and if it has happened, it's not as rare as you think.

Also, you do understand that this thread started from such an anecdotal premise I could call all of your premises, all of your defenses of "why do they have to be snipped to prevent being stiffed by these evil fucking vipers", and all your whining about it bullshit, right?

So I suggest you stop with the condescending shit, because it's not funny, and you aren't even making sense with it.

It's absurd anyway. It's certainly harder to trap a woman into pregnancy and parenthood (and therefore, a relationship) but not utterly and completely impossible.

Even though it probably should be, abortion is not free and available at every doctor's office, and with a bit of luck and manipulation, it might be possible to get ahold of the kid to prevent legal parental surrender that women can freely excercise in all 50 states until after the window is closed.

Much more difficult, certainly. But not impossible.

Cultural factors also play a hand into it.

It might not be common in the United States, or even among white people, but with immigrants, especially immigrant women who come from Catholic nations, this is something that happens all too often because they have a certain cultural expectation instilled into them to carry a pregnancy and have the father in the life of the child. Parents even push these women to be with the guy or else be seen in bad light in the family, and in tight-knit cultures where family is important, this can tear women and be forced into a relationship.

There is absolutely no reason to believe trickery and deceit are the only two factors, sometimes men do prey on minority women exactly because of their more tight culture and family ties as well as beliefs.

Sure, we're talking about the developed world, but many immigrants do come from these cultures, so it is relevant to point out that the notion that this is so rare is absurd from several angles. Women can be trapped in relationships with men they don't want, and they often do not wish to have children or do something specific because of this. Now, if we're just talking about white women, this would be okay to refute and say "well, it is rare so whatever", but we're not just talking about white women and men, or at least I assume we're not because that'd be such a degree of tunnel vision I'd be worried as to what NSG actually thinks happens in the real world.

[Galloism]

It's absurd anyway. It's certainly harder to trap a woman into pregnancy and parenthood (and therefore, a relationship) but not utterly and completely impossible.

Even though it probably should be, abortion is not free and available at every doctor's office, and with a bit of luck and manipulation, it might be possible to get ahold of the kid to prevent legal parental surrender that women can freely excercise in all 50 states until after the window is closed.

Much more difficult, certainly. But not impossible.

Cultural factors also play a hand into it.

It might not be common in the United States, or even among white people, but with immigrants, especially immigrant women who come from Catholic nations, this is something that happens all too often because they have a certain cultural expectation instilled into them to carry a pregnancy and have the father in the life of the child. Parents even push these women to be with the guy or else be seen in bad light in the family, and in tight-knit cultures where family is important, this can tear women and be forced into a relationship.

There is absolutely no reason to believe trickery and deceit are the only two factors, sometimes men do prey on minority women exactly because of their more tight culture and family ties as well as beliefs.

Sure, we're talking about the developed world, but many immigrants do come from these cultures, so it is relevant to point out that the notion that this is so rare is absurd from several angles. Women can be trapped in relationships with men they don't want, and they often do not wish to have children or do something specific because of this. Now, if we're just talking about white women, this would be okay to refute and say "well, it is rare so whatever", but we're not just talking about white women, or at least I assume we're not because that'd be such a degree of tunnel vision I'd be worried as to what NSG actually thinks happens in the real world.

Well, I'm not insensitive to cultural pressures, but submitting to cultural pressures is, in fact, a choice - not a trap.

It's not an easy choice sure, but still a choice.

Otherwise, men can't consent to sex and all sex with men is rape by entrapment, because men are culturally pressured to have sex.

I reject that argument in a free country. Now if there were legal punishments for transgression against the norm, that would be different.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Cultural factors also play a hand into it.

It might not be common in the United States, or even among white people, but with immigrants, especially immigrant women who come from Catholic nations, this is something that happens all too often because they have a certain cultural expectation instilled into them to carry a pregnancy and have the father in the life of the child. Parents even push these women to be with the guy or else be seen in bad light in the family, and in tight-knit cultures where family is important, this can tear women and be forced into a relationship.

There is absolutely no reason to believe trickery and deceit are the only two factors, sometimes men do prey on minority women exactly because of their more tight culture and family ties as well as beliefs.

Sure, we're talking about the developed world, but many immigrants do come from these cultures, so it is relevant to point out that the notion that this is so rare is absurd from several angles. Women can be trapped in relationships with men they don't want, and they often do not wish to have children or do something specific because of this. Now, if we're just talking about white women, this would be okay to refute and say "well, it is rare so whatever", but we're not just talking about white women, or at least I assume we're not because that'd be such a degree of tunnel vision I'd be worried as to what NSG actually thinks happens in the real world.

Well, I'm not insensitive to cultural pressures, but submitting to cultural pressures is, in fact, a choice - not a trap.

It's not an easy choice sure, but still a choice.

Otherwise, men can't consent to sex and all sex with men is rape by entrapment, because men are culturally pressured to have sex.

I reject that argument in a free country. Now if there were legal punishments for transgression against the norm, that would be different.

Sure, but then you enter the argument of "how much of a free country is a free country really?", because as much as we like to think that the US is such a free country and we don't get trapped because of extenuating circumstances, we do.

When the choice you make brings about severe consequences, far more severe than just accepting the demands of someone else, then it's not really a choice. It is only a choice if there is, as you say, enough freedom to do what you want and there's no negative consequence attached to it, such as when women go get an abortion and they don't belong to any particular tight-knit community.

However, when it comes between being completely and utterly alone because of your choice, or face legal repercussions (which happens when Americans sleep with illegal immigrants), and being with someone to be accepted and to have as much of the status quo unchanged as possible, I am not going to sit here and pretend that's a "choice" for many, because it really and truly isn't a choice. I'm pretty sure I have a choice to do whatever I want to legally, that doesn't mean I truly have a choice circumstantially. I mean, I could go ahead and do certain things, it is a free country, that doesn't mean I am actually free to do them because the consequences would be disproportionately harsh in comparison to the rewards, so is it a choice? No.

[Galloism]

Well, I'm not insensitive to cultural pressures, but submitting to cultural pressures is, in fact, a choice - not a trap.

It's not an easy choice sure, but still a choice.

Otherwise, men can't consent to sex and all sex with men is rape by entrapment, because men are culturally pressured to have sex.

I reject that argument in a free country. Now if there were legal punishments for transgression against the norm, that would be different.

Sure, but then you enter the argument of "how much of a free country is a free country really?", because as much as we like to think that the US is such a free country and we don't get trapped because of extenuating circumstances, we do.

When the choice you make brings about severe consequences, far more severe than just accepting the demands of someone else, then it's not really a choice. It is only a choice if there is, as you say, enough freedom to do what you want and there's no negative consequence attached to it, such as when women go get an abortion and they don't belong to any particular tight-knit community.

However, when it comes between being completely and utterly alone because of your choice, or face legal repercussions (which happens when Americans sleep with illegal immigrants), and being with someone to be accepted and to have as much of the status quo unchanged as possible, I am not going to sit here and pretend that's a "choice" for many, because it really and truly isn't a choice. I'm pretty sure I have a choice to do whatever I want to legally, that doesn't mean I truly have a choice circumstantially.

Ok, I'm a little lost on this. What legal repercussions are there when an illegal alien sleeps with an American, and to whom?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Ok, I'm a little lost on this. What legal repercussions are there when an illegal alien sleeps with an American, and to whom?

Let's put it this way:

A woman who is an illegal immigrant sleeps with an American man because the American man somehow talked her into having sex and whatever, and he is aware that she is an illegal immigrant.

So she gets pregnant and the guy forces her hand by actually telling her that if they don't marry he's going to call ICE on her and deport her as soon as the child is born, and since the child is American the authorities will, with some lawyering which the guy can pay, give him the child, and let's suppose this woman wants the child because she was raised to be pro-life and to be happy about a pregnancy and she doesn't mind it's from a sleazebag because she reasons that while the father is a sleazebag, the child may be raised to not be a sleazebag.

Now, the choice she is presented is: marry the guy or be deported and lose her child upon his or her birth.

That's not really a choice, and it'd be sort of ridiculous to pretend there is any for the woman in this situation.

Further, I am not saying this happens often. Not all men force women's hands like this, but it does happen if there is a history of the guy being abusive and manipulative, and abusive men are not uncommon, they certainly are not the majority, but it is not uncommon.

[Springstile]

Well. if you wanna get snipped then snipped shall be. Just make sure you made the right choice for yourself.

[Galloism]

Ok, I'm a little lost on this. What legal repercussions are there when an illegal alien sleeps with an American, and to whom?

Let's put it this way:

A woman who is an illegal immigrant sleeps with an American man because the American man somehow talked her into having sex and whatever, and he is aware that she is an illegal immigrant.

So she gets pregnant and the guy forces her hand by actually telling her that if they don't marry he's going to call ICE on her and deport her as soon as the child is born, and since the child is American the authorities will, with some lawyering which the guy can pay, give him the child, and let's suppose this woman wants the child because she was raised to be pro-life and to be happy about a pregnancy and she doesn't mind it's from a sleazebag because she reasons that while the father is a sleazebag, the child may be raised to not be a sleazebag.

Now, the choice she is presented is: marry the guy or be deported and lose her child upon his or her birth.

That's not really a choice, and it'd be sort of ridiculous to pretend there is any for the woman in this situation.

Further, I am not saying this happens often. Not all men force women's hands like this, but it does happen if there is a history of the guy being abusive and manipulative.

Ok, that one I could see. There's a legal repercussion there, and getting booted from the country is quite serious as a punishment.

Could also happen in the reverse too.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Ok, that one I could see. There's a legal repercussion there, and getting booted from the country is quite serious as a punishment.

Could also happen in the reverse too.

Quite. So I am not dismissing the possibility that there are cases where there's forcing of hands for men either in this situation; as you pointed out it can be used against a man as well, but the possibility certainly exists for women, too.

It all requires that the perpetrator holds something against their victim that they can use to basically force the victim into being with them, so the choice stops being a choice, really, at that point. But, as I said in the edit above, this tends to happen with abusive men or women, so it doesn't need for the perpetrator to be rich or poor, just sly enough and sleazy enough.

[Galloism]

Ok, that one I could see. There's a legal repercussion there, and getting booted from the country is quite serious as a punishment.

Could also happen in the reverse too.

Quite. So I am not dismissing the possibility that there are cases where there's no forcing of hands for men either in this situation; as you pointed out it can be used against a man as well, but the possibility certainly exists for women, too.

It all requires that the perpetrator holds something against their victim that they can use to basically force the victim into being with them, so the choice stops being a choice, really, at that point. But, as I said in the edit above, this tends to happen with abusive men or women, so it doesn't need for the perpetrator to be rich or poor, just sly enough and sleazy enough.

Of course, for a man, it nearly requires a separate thing (such as you hypothesized) in order to be done, in addition to pregnancy/child.

For a woman, the pregnancy and eventual child is literally that thing.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Quite. So I am not dismissing the possibility that there are cases where there's no forcing of hands for men either in this situation; as you pointed out it can be used against a man as well, but the possibility certainly exists for women, too.

It all requires that the perpetrator holds something against their victim that they can use to basically force the victim into being with them, so the choice stops being a choice, really, at that point. But, as I said in the edit above, this tends to happen with abusive men or women, so it doesn't need for the perpetrator to be rich or poor, just sly enough and sleazy enough.

Of course, for a man, it nearly requires a separate thing (such as you hypothesized) in order to be done, in addition to pregnancy/child.

For a woman, the pregnancy and eventual child is literally that thing.

Quite. I wasn't really talking about the differences and which is worse though, just putting forth the notion that, indeed, a woman can be forced to be with someone through several means, blackmail being one of them, cultural expectations and losing your entire family over not being with a sleazebag second. So Costa's argument that men cannot have control and cannot force a woman to be with them doesn't really make sense if you think hard enough on the possibilities that exist in the legal system and relationship dynamics for that to happen under threat or undesirable consequences to a woman.

It just so happens to be that men, equally, face these problems, and both moves from the abusive partners are wrong, in my opinion. A woman shouldn't force a man to be in a relationship if they don't want to, and a man should not force a woman to be in a relationship if they don't want to, either through non-legal pressure or through legal pressure. Cause women can coerce a man to be in a relationship through pressure that doesn't necessarily carry legal consequences, too, so that's not lost on me, but since Costa was talking that there was no way a man can manipulate or coerce a woman to be in a relationship, well, it was worth pointing out it is possible.

[Costa Fierro]

No, it's just possible, and if it is possible, it has happened, and if it has happened, it's not as rare as you think.

It's not possible though. There's no instance where a man could trap a woman inside a relationship because men have no leverage over women.

Also, you do understand that this thread started from such an anecdotal premise I could call all of your premises, all of your defenses of "why do they have to be snipped to prevent being stiffed by these evil fucking vipers", and all your whining about it bullshit, right?

Call it what you want but the both of us know I am right. It's not an anecdotal premise, because it started with an interview with someone stating why he is going out and getting a vasectomy, so it is in fact a record of a person stating his reasons as to why he is doing something, which is therefore fact. As are the legal issues surrounding men who are the legal fathers to unwanted children, because states in the US and governments elsewhere have written, codified laws stipulating how women can be awarded child support from fathers of unwanted children. None of those are anecdotal, especially the legal aspects of this because anyone can look up state or national law and see what their respective legal jurisdiction has legislated when it comes to child support.

So I suggest you stop with the condescending shit, because it's not funny, I replied in good faith, and you aren't even making sense with it.

You don't have the right to suggest or to tell me what to do. And how am I not making sense? What part of any of my arguments I have made in this thread are nonsensical?

If you're just going to be condescending just to be condescending and bitter when there's no fucking reason to be, I suggest you go and do it to someone else, cause honestly I'm not going to waste my time with someone who is going to tell me within veiled snark to go fuck myself over an observation.

Why should I go somewhere else when I have been making constructive dialogue with people about why men are doing this and debating the possibilities to address the legal imbalance with regards to unwanted children?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Call it what you want but the both of us know I am right. It's not an anecdotal premise, because it started with an interview with someone stating why he is going out and getting a vasectomy, so it is in fact a record of a person stating his reasons as to why he is doing something, which is therefore fact. As are the legal issues surrounding men who are the legal fathers to unwanted children, because states in the US and governments elsewhere have written, codified laws stipulating how women can be awarded child support from fathers of unwanted children. None of those are anecdotal, especially the legal aspects of this because anyone can look up state or national law and see what their respective legal jurisdiction has legislated when it comes to child support.

You just stated what an anecdote is.

This is laughable. Thank you for showing you're just here trying to come across as bitter and have no real discussion points.

You just made my day, y'know.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Now, if we're just talking about white women, this would be okay to refute and say "well, it is rare so whatever", but we're not just talking about white women and men, or at least I assume we're not because that'd be such a degree of tunnel vision I'd be worried as to what NSG actually thinks happens in the real world.

Well, we know what the laws are in the real world. We know what our personal experiences are in the real world. And we have a good guess through the social sciences of what might be more likely to occur in the real world. But we don't "know" for sure anyway. Survey respondents can lie just as easily as that wealthy interviewee.

"Social pressure" is just too subjective to be fair game under the law. Who gets to say whether the social pressure to keep the baby is greater than the social pressure for men to get laid to prove they can? No one has experienced both, with the possible exception of those who've had a sex change, in which case the order in which one experiences them might throw them off anyway.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why should I go somewhere else when I have been making constructive dialogue with people about why men are doing this and debating the possibilities to address the legal imbalance with regards to unwanted children?

No, you haven't.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Now, if we're just talking about white women, this would be okay to refute and say "well, it is rare so whatever", but we're not just talking about white women and men, or at least I assume we're not because that'd be such a degree of tunnel vision I'd be worried as to what NSG actually thinks happens in the real world.

Well, we know what the laws are in the real world. We know what our personal experiences are in the real world. And we have a good guess through the social sciences of what might be more likely to occur in the real world. But we don't "know" for sure anyway. Survey respondents can lie just as easily as that wealthy interviewee.

"Social pressure" is just too subjective to be fair game under the law. Who gets to say whether the social pressure to keep the baby is greater than the social pressure for men to get laid to prove they can? No one has experienced both, with the possible exception of those who've had a sex change, in which case the order in which one experiences them might throw them off anyway.

So basically, anything but who you surround with is irrelevant to the conversation because it is too damn hard to pinpoint what the real issue(s) is/are?

It might not be fair game under the law, it is still fair game. Again, if we're just talking about white people, then there's a point to be made about the law, because we're talking about only one culture and everyone knows at a presumptive level the same issues being discussed. It's an extreme degree of tunnel vision if you live in America, but there's a point to be made.

[Costa Fierro]

You just stated what an anecdote is.

And it's also a fact, because it is a primary source, i.e from the actual person. When you use anecdotes in a debate as evidence, they become worthless.

This is laughable. Thank you for showing you're just here trying to come across as bitter and have no real discussion points.

I have real discussion points if you cared to read them. It's clear that you haven't. Also, I am not bitter at all. I'm pointing out the lack of rights men have regarding decisions in their lives regarding children and we have already discussed potential solutions to rectify them.

I'm sorry you didn't read through the rest of the thread but it's only a few pages. Look up the term "paper abortions" in the search bar and follow from there.

No, you haven't.

Not with you.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You just stated what an anecdote is.

And it's also a fact, because it is a primary source, i.e from the actual person. When you use anecdotes in a debate as evidence, they become worthless.

This is laughable. Thank you for showing you're just here trying to come across as bitter and have no real discussion points.

I have real discussion points if you cared to read them. It's clear that you haven't. Also, I am not bitter at all. I'm pointing out the lack of rights men have regarding decisions in their lives regarding children and we have already discussed potential solutions to rectify them.

I'm sorry you didn't read through the rest of the thread but it's only a few pages. Look up the term "paper abortions" in the search bar and follow from there.

No, you haven't.

Not with you.

An anecdote is an anecdote.

And I'm sorry, I treat these threads as discussions, not debate, because if this was a debate team, we'd all be fucked.

[Jello Biafra]

It would increase the need for collections, by increasing the pool of children who are unsupported.

Let's review:

The system should be less punitive and more helpful, but completely ignoring people who can't afford to pay child support would just mean more unsupported babies being born.

Who can't afford to pay child support. We have launched into this from talking about punishing people who can't afford to pay child support.

If someone can't afford to pay child support, their children are "unsupported" (in practice, supported by welfare if eligible based on low income of custodial parent) whether or not you choose to punish them. Moreover, if you choose to punish them in a way that prevents them from paying child support, your collections efforts cause that child to remain "unsupported."

As I am talking about less punitive measures, I am thinking of something like requiring the parent to complete some kind of approved work training program.
However, even if we're talking about the currently punitive measures such as throwing the parent in jail, at least they are not producing additional unsupported babies while they're in there.

Men who don't want to have kids either (A) use effective birth control or (B) abstain, or (C) give the baby up for adoption. Not 'entirely controlled' in the
least.

(A) Unlike women, men have only one method of widely available safe and effective birth control. Its efficacy is easily compromised by a pinprick by any malicious actor (or being badly stored), and it is generally understood to alter the sensations of sex (which is generally considered the main point of having sex if you're not interested in having kids, so isn't unimportant.

The premise of this very thread is about men who don't want to have kids, and the methods they're taking to achieve this goal.

If more women are willing to have babies, the birth rate will go up.

If more women get pregnant, the birth rate will go up, because the abortion rate will not increase at the same rate. If only one person is concerned with preventing pregnancy rather than two, more women will get pregnant.

[Tahar Joblis]

Let's review:

Who can't afford to pay child support. We have launched into this from talking about punishing people who can't afford to pay child support.

If someone can't afford to pay child support, their children are "unsupported" (in practice, supported by welfare if eligible based on low income of custodial parent) whether or not you choose to punish them. Moreover, if you choose to punish them in a way that prevents them from paying child support, your collections efforts cause that child to remain "unsupported."

As I am talking about less punitive measures, I am thinking of something like requiring the parent to complete some kind of approved work training program.
However, even if we're talking about the currently punitive measures such as throwing the parent in jail, at least they are not producing additional unsupported babies while they're in there.

As I pointed out, men have very little control over that rate. It's mostly women's decisions fueling the birth rate.

Locking up victims does little to slow perpetration of crime. For the same reason, locking up men who have fathered children will do little, if anything, to slow the birthrate.

The premise of this very thread is about men who don't want to have kids, and the methods they're taking to achieve this goal.

This thread has fairly clearly established that having a vasectomy to avoid having kids right now is a pretty extreme measure (especially since they are not 100% reversible).

Men are resorting to those extreme measures because of the extreme imbalance in power.

If more women get pregnant, the birth rate will go up, because the abortion rate will not increase at the same rate.

That's true. The abortion rate could increase more quickly, as women choosing to have abortions increase the social acceptability of abortions within their immediate circle of acquaintances.

If only one person is concerned with preventing pregnancy rather than two, more women will get pregnant.

This is neither a true conditional statement, nor is the antecedent true.

As I said, women have much more control over whether or not births happen than men.

Right now, in cases such as the OP is concerned with, only one person (the man) is concerned with preventing pregnancy, because women are willing to risk pregnancy conditioned on their ability to coerce financial support from men. Eliminate this from that particular sexual encounter, and you now likely have two people concerned with preventing births, one of whom has a great deal more ability to do so.

As I have pointed out:

(1) A significant percentage of men report having had sexual partners attempting to get pregnant against the will of those men, in spite of the fact that men have a great deal of difficulty detecting such attempts.
(NISVS 2010.)
(2) A significant percentage of "unplanned" pregnancies are the result of women making a deliberate choice to risk pregnancy. (Spohn 2006.)

If you want to reduce the number of "unsupported babies" being born, which generally come from some subset of pregnancies that are either obtained against the will of the father (either via birth control sabotage or rape) or caused as the result of deliberate risk-taking by the mother, you address the motivations of the people whose decisions actually have a major effect on those numbers.

Any significant change in the motivations of women involved with (1) and (2) will have a significant effect on the number of "unsupported babies" being born.

For this reason, your claim rests on a very shaky foundation. If you remove or reduce the ability of women to coerce men, you create a significant change in the motivations of those women who engage in sexual misconduct (1), and also shift the patterns of anticipated rewards associated with risk-taking behavior (2).

[Jello Biafra]

If more women get pregnant, the birth rate will go up, because the abortion rate will not increase at the same rate.

That's true. The abortion rate could increase more quickly, as women choosing to have abortions increase the social acceptability of abortions within their immediate circle of acquaintances.

Sure, and ground up unicorn horn could prove to be a cure for leprosy.

If only one person is concerned with preventing pregnancy rather than two, more women will get pregnant.

This is neither a true conditional statement, nor is the antecedent true.

As I said, women have much more control over whether or not births happen than men.

Right now, in cases such as the OP is concerned with, only one person (the man) is concerned with preventing pregnancy, because women are willing to risk pregnancy conditioned on their ability to coerce financial support from men. Eliminate this from that particular sexual encounter, and you now likely have two people concerned with preventing births, one of whom has a great deal more ability to do so.

There no reason to believe that eliminating women's "ability to coerce financial support from men" would result in more than one person being concerned with preventing births in most of these cases; the person would switch from the man to the woman.

As I have pointed out:

(1) A significant percentage of men report having had sexual partners attempting to get pregnant against the will of those men, in spite of the fact that men have a great deal of difficulty detecting such attempts.
(NISVS 2010.)
(2) A significant percentage of "unplanned" pregnancies are the result of women making a deliberate choice to risk pregnancy. (Spohn 2006.)

If you want to reduce the number of "unsupported babies" being born, which generally come from some subset of pregnancies that are either obtained against the will of the father (either via birth control sabotage or rape) or caused as the result of deliberate risk-taking by the mother, you address the motivations of the people whose decisions actually have a major effect on those numbers.

Given that close to half of all births in the U.S. are the result of unintended pregnancies, your sources do not show that births resulting from unintended pregnancies generally result from pregnancies that involve birth control sabotage, rape, or deliberate risk-taking by the mother.

Any significant change in the motivations of women involved with (1) and (2) will have a significant effect on the number of "unsupported babies" being born.

Any significant change in the motivations of men in cases outside of (1) and (2) will also have a significant effect on the number of unsupported babies being born, in the opposite direction.

For this reason, your claim rests on a very shaky foundation. If you remove or reduce the ability of women to coerce men, you create a significant change in the motivations of those women who engage in sexual misconduct (1), and also shift the patterns of anticipated rewards associated with risk-taking behavior (2).

Currently, only 27% of men in heterosexual relationships use condoms or vasectomies as a form of birth control, and only 55% would consider using hormonal contraceptives, and that's even with the ability of women to "coerce men". Not a shaky foundation at all.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So basically, anything but who you surround with is irrelevant to the conversation because it is too damn hard to pinpoint what the real issue(s) is/are?

What? Where the hell did you get that from my posts?

It might not be fair game under the law, it is still fair game.

This is about the law. Child support law.

Again, if we're just talking about white people, then there's a point to be made about the law, because we're talking about only one culture and everyone knows at a presumptive level the same issues being discussed. It's an extreme degree of tunnel vision if you live in America, but there's a point to be made.

That's odd, I don't recall child support law carving out an exception for guys who only fucked white women.

Speaking of which, what difference does it make whether other guys use condoms or not? Suppose a guy used a condom, but it broke or overflowed. Not that there's exceptions for that either, but even if there were, how's he supposed to prove it?

[Ethel mermania]

So basically, anything but who you surround with is irrelevant to the conversation because it is too damn hard to pinpoint what the real issue(s) is/are?

What? Where the hell did you get that from my posts?

It might not be fair game under the law, it is still fair game.

This is about the law. Child support law.

Again, if we're just talking about white people, then there's a point to be made about the law, because we're talking about only one culture and everyone knows at a presumptive level the same issues being discussed. It's an extreme degree of tunnel vision if you live in America, but there's a point to be made.

That's odd, I don't recall child support law carving out an exception for guys who only fucked white women.

Speaking of which, what difference does it make whether other guys use condoms or not? Suppose a guy used a condom, but it broke or overflowed. Not that there's exceptions for that either, but even if there were, how's he supposed to prove it?

It's still the guys kid, he is still responsible.

[Tahar Joblis]

Given that close to half of all births in the U.S. are the result of unintended pregnancies, your sources do not show that births resulting from unintended pregnancies generally result from pregnancies that involve birth control sabotage, rape, or deliberate risk-taking by the mother.

You haven't run the numbers, have you?

The birth rate is a little over 1 per 100 persons per annum.

Spohn (2006) showed that fully a third of the women in the sample had deliberately risked pregnancy in the past, not including having planned with a partner to become pregnant. Similarly large portions indicated willingness to do so hypothetically in the future. These are pregnancies that are classified as "unplanned." Spohn conducted the research after becoming interested in why so many of her clients were having "unplanned" pregnancies. It turned out that while they were not precisely intending to become pregnant, they were willing to make deliberate choices to risk becoming pregnant depending on the characteristics of their sex partner.

The sample was drawn from community college students, which does not completely represent the population, but that shows a large effect.

The NSIVS shows 8.7% of men having noticed a partner trying to get pregnant against the will of said man. Since this is an underdetected phenomenon, this is known to be an underestimate of the fraction of women trying this. Either points towards a scale that yes, is significant compared to the number of "unplanned" or "unintended" pregnancies that occur; and, in fact, includes a significant fraction of "unplanned" or "unintended" pregnancies.

There no reason to believe that eliminating women's "ability to coerce financial support from men" would result in more than one person being concerned with preventing births in most of these cases; the person would switch from the man to the woman.

No, there's pretty clearly social pressures above and beyond the availability of legal coercion. Both men and women have perfectly good reasons to be concerned about pregnancy occurring in general; it's just that under certain circumstances, men or women may want to cause pregnancy.

Any significant change in the motivations of women involved with (1) and (2) will have a significant effect on the number of "unsupported babies" being born.

Any significant change in the motivations of men in cases outside of (1) and (2) will also have a significant effect on the number of unsupported babies being born, in the opposite direction.

No, because women make most of the decisions affecting whether or not those pregnancies occur.

Currently, only 27% of men in heterosexual relationships use condoms or vasectomies as a form of birth control, and only 55% would consider using hormonal contraceptives, and that's even with the ability of women to "coerce men". Not a shaky foundation at all.

You have a very funny spin on that source.

For example, a survey of 9,000 men in 9 nine countries in 2005 revealed that 55% of men were willing to use male hormonal contraceptives, while only 21% were unwilling. Another study showed one third of men would use male contraception as their main form of contraception. Further evidence that there is indeed a market for male contraceptives is the fact that men are already responsible for contraception, as approximately 27% of heterosexual couples in western nations use a male-dependent form of contraception (condoms or vasectomy).

Editorially opposite. That's actually 79% "would consider," with 55% being definitely willing and 21% unwilling a priori.

Let's explain. Because condoms are widely held to alter sensation, vasectomies are not reliable reversible (and are generally expensive), and most of those men at least want to seem to trust their partner. The result is that the majority of heterosexual partners trying to prevent fertility use some other method. Which is then "female-dependent" in all other cases. (Mostly the pill.)

Which women can and do either neglect (because they're willing to run the risk of pregnancy given the insurance of being able to compel their male partner) or sabotage (in an active effort to compel their male partner), leading to pregnancies widely described as "unintended" or "unplanned."

[Costa Fierro]

It's still the guys kid, he is still responsible.

Why should he be held responsible? If a man uses protection or contraception, and that contraceptive fails, why should he be held responsible if the woman becomes pregnant? More to the point, why should a man be held responsible for a child if the woman sabotages his condoms or lies to him about taking contraceptive pills?

It's like saying we should hold women responsible for being raped. If women cannot be held responsible for something that ruins their life, why is it OK to hold men responsible according to the same standard?

[Ethel mermania]

It's still the guys kid, he is still responsible.

Why should he be held responsible? If a man uses protection or contraception, and that contraceptive fails, why should he be held responsible if the woman becomes pregnant? More to the point, why should a man be held responsible for a child if the woman sabotages his condoms or lies to him about taking contraceptive pills?

It's like saying we should hold women responsible for being raped. If women cannot be held responsible for something that ruins their life, why is it OK to hold men responsible according to the same standard?

Because one is responsible for accidents one causes. You drive your car into someone else's by accident you are still paying for it. It's called being an adult. It's why the folks in the OP are doing what they are doing. To ensure the do not have kids that they would be responsible.

Your second paragraph is nonsense. There simply is no logic to it. If you get your dick wet there are consequences to actions. A woman does not ask to get raped.