Single rich guys getting snipped

[The Blaatschapen]

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?

Equating unexpected pregnancy with rape. Stay Classy.

[The Emerald Legion]

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?

Equating unexpected pregnancy with rape. Stay Classy.

Isn't that the exact circumstances that caused Assange to be accused of rape? His partner was willing if he used protection and then he didn't?

[Camicon]

Equating unexpected pregnancy with rape. Stay Classy.

Isn't that the exact circumstances that caused Assange to be accused of rape? His partner was willing if he used protection and then he didn't?

Yeah. Nice to see the "men can't be raped" double-standards are still alive and well.

Well... not "nice". More "horribly depressing". Sabotaging a condom or lying about contraceptives she might be taking prevents men from giving informed consent. Is the feminist position not "sex without informed consent is rape"?

But you don't even need to go to rape to expose the hypocrisy. A woman can purposefully have sex without any preventative measures of any kind and still not "have to live with the consequences" or "be held responsible" for her actions, because abortion and adoption are both options available to her. Women can take reactive measures to abrogate their responsibility to a child they become pregnant with or birth; men can only take preventative measures, and their fate after fertilization is left entirely to the whims of the mother.

[The Blaatschapen]

Equating unexpected pregnancy with rape. Stay Classy.

Isn't that the exact circumstances that caused Assange to be accused of rape? His partner was willing if he used protection and then he didn't?

Well, consenting to one particular act does not mean consent for another act. Sex with condoms or sex without are two different acts.

[Len Hyet]

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?

Isn't that the exact circumstances that caused Assange to be accused of rape? His partner was willing if he used protection and then he didn't?

Well, consenting to one particular act does not mean consent for another act. Sex with condoms or sex without are two different acts.

So, you two agree then?

[Chestaan]

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.

I remember one case where an underage teenage boy was raped and his rapist became pregnant. He then was forced to pay child support.

[Chestaan]

Isn't that the exact circumstances that caused Assange to be accused of rape? His partner was willing if he used protection and then he didn't?

Well, consenting to one particular act does not mean consent for another act. Sex with condoms or sex without are two different acts.

So, if a woman tells a man that she is on the pill while she isn't and they then have sex, did she rape the man?

[Neutraligon]

Well, consenting to one particular act does not mean consent for another act. Sex with condoms or sex without are two different acts.

So, if a woman tells a man that she is on the pill while she isn't and they then have sex, did she rape the man?

Yes.

[Diopolis]

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?

No. No it's not.
These guys are making a conscious choice to have sex. That always entails some risk of pregnancy. It may not be a big risk, but it is a risk that is always present. That risk may or may not be different from what you expected, but it is still there and you knew it. If you are not enough of an adult to clean up after your own messes, you are not enough of an adult to consent to sex.

[Costa Fierro]

Equating unexpected pregnancy with rape. Stay Classy.

Why? If people want to make such ridiculous arguments about men being responsible for the actions of women, then by logic it only makes sense for women to be responsible for the actions of men. Holding people to two different standards is moronic.

Not only that, as others have pointed out, if the woman lies to the man about being on the pill, then that is a form of sexual coercion and is, essentially, rape. Because the man had sex under false pretenses. A man may consent to sex, but he does not necessarily consent to having a child. Assuming that he does on the basis of the fact that he is having sex is like suggesting men consent to all sex based on whether or not his penis is erect.

Because one is responsible for accidents one causes.

Except when you are not responsible. Men who have sex with women who have lied to them about taking contraceptive pills or sabotages their condoms are not responsible for any pregnancies that result from it because they consented to sex under false pretenses. In essence, they were manipulated into having sex through virtue of physical sabotage or verbal lies. If a man lied to a woman about promising he was going to wear a condom and then takes it off midway through the intercourse, or proceeds to have sex with her without it on, that would be considered rape. Why do you think the same standard does not apply when the sexes are switched.

You drive your car into someone else's by accident you are still paying for it.

So when someone else drives your car into another vehicle, are you still responsible for paying for it? You gave them your car assuming they would be a safe driver and they crashed it.

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.

A man does not consent to pregnancy every time he has sex. Stop holding people to two different standards.

No. No it's not.

Yes it is.

These guys are making a conscious choice to have sex.

They are. But a man who does not want children would consent to sex if he or his partner use some from of protection or contraceptive. It's not consent if a man has sex with a woman who has either sabotaged his condoms or who has lied to him about taking contraceptive pills. A man who consents to sex does not automatically consent to a pregnancy.

That risk may or may not be different from what you expected, but it is still there and you knew it. If you are not enough of an adult to clean up after your own messes, you are not enough of an adult to consent to sex.

Men who take precautions still end up getting women pregnant through sabotage or simply being lied to about the woman taking contraceptive pills. How is he still responsible for a child given he consented to sex but not to the pregnancy?

[Diopolis]

Equating unexpected pregnancy with rape. Stay Classy.

Why? If people want to make such ridiculous arguments about men being responsible for the actions of women, then by logic it only makes sense for women to be responsible for the actions of men. Holding people to two different standards is moronic.

Not only that, as others have pointed out, if the woman lies to the man about being on the pill, then that is a form of sexual coercion and is, essentially, rape. Because the man had sex under false pretenses. A man may consent to sex, but he does not necessarily consent to having a child. Assuming that he does on the basis of the fact that he is having sex is like suggesting men consent to all sex based on whether or not his penis is erect.

Because one is responsible for accidents one causes.

Except when you are not responsible. Men who have sex with women who have lied to them about taking contraceptive pills or sabotages their condoms are not responsible for any pregnancies that result from it because they consented to sex under false pretenses. In essence, they were manipulated into having sex through virtue of physical sabotage or verbal lies. If a man lied to a woman about promising he was going to wear a condom and then takes it off midway through the intercourse, or proceeds to have sex with her without it on, that would be considered rape. Why do you think the same standard does not apply when the sexes are switched.

You drive your car into someone else's by accident you are still paying for it.

So when someone else drives your car into another vehicle, are you still responsible for paying for it? You gave them your car assuming they would be a safe driver and they crashed it.

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.

A man does not consent to pregnancy every time he has sex. Stop holding people to two different standards.

No. No it's not.

Yes it is.

These guys are making a conscious choice to have sex.

They are. But a man who does not want children would consent to sex if he or his partner use some from of protection or contraceptive. It's not consent if a man has sex with a woman who has either sabotaged his condoms or who has lied to him about taking contraceptive pills. A man who consents to sex does not automatically consent to a pregnancy.

That risk may or may not be different from what you expected, but it is still there and you knew it. If you are not enough of an adult to clean up after your own messes, you are not enough of an adult to consent to sex.

Men who take precautions still end up getting women pregnant through sabotage or simply being lied to about the woman taking contraceptive pills. How is he still responsible for a child given he consented to sex but not to the pregnancy?

Because he knew this was a possibility going in, no matter how many precautions he took.

[Costa Fierro]

Because he knew this was a possibility going in, no matter how many precautions he took.

No he would not. Female contraceptives are significantly better at preventing pregnancies than condoms are, because there are failures due to defects in the manufacturing process, storage and application. Contraceptives lack these failures, which is why men are reliant on women taking them. Short of simply foregoing sex with women altogether, how can you make sure that the woman you are having sex with is telling you the truth when it comes to contraceptives? If she's lying, and depending on your circumstances, she very well might be, then that would constitute a form of rape as the man consented to sex but did not consent to a pregnancy.

More to the point, why should men be forced to support something that they never wanted in the first place or consented to? Women have the option of abdicating responsibilities for children through abortion and adoption, so why aren't men allowed to do the same?

[Jello Biafra]

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.[/quote]
The extent to which these social pressures actually exist or actually have any bearing on people's actions would not be affected by the removal of legal "coercion". There are already far too many people not affected, and who are not going to be affected by, said social pressures. Legal "coercion" is the only thing keeping them at all responsible in their reproductive habits.

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.

Are you sure you don't mean women make most of the decisions affecting whether or not births occur from those pregnancies?

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.

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."

Women also have complaints about the way condoms alter sensation. If men not wanting to use a condom in itself doesn't mean that he doesn't care about whether or not pregnancy occurs, then the same is true for women.

[Jello Biafra]

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?

If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, does this mean she's not responsible for any child that might result from the pregnancy?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So, if a woman tells a man that she is on the pill while she isn't and they then have sex, did she rape the man?

Yes.

What if the converse then? If a woman tells a man that she doesn't have her tubes tied when she does, or a man tells a woman that he hasn't had a vasectomy when he has?

And what if they simply don't say one way or the other?

[Camicon]

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?

If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, does this mean she's not responsible for any child that might result from the pregnancy?

We don't force her to be. Even if she can't get an abortion because of asshole politicians, she can give the child up for adoption. Men are given no option to abrogate their responsibility.

[Jello Biafra]

If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, does this mean she's not responsible for any child that might result from the pregnancy?

We don't force her to be. Even if she can't get an abortion because of asshole politicians, she can give the child up for adoption.

And if she doesn't give it up for adoption?

Men are given no option to abrogate their responsibility.

There are definitely sexist adoption laws which penalize men which should be rewritten, but in this example, it's entirely feasible that her rapist could block the adoption.

[Camicon]

We don't force her to be. Even if she can't get an abortion because of asshole politicians, she can give the child up for adoption.

And if she doesn't give it up for adoption?

Then she has made the choice not to do so; ergo, she is not being forced. A choice men are not given; ergo, they are being forced.

Men are given no option to abrogate their responsibility.

There are definitely sexist adoption laws which penalize men which should be rewritten, but in this example, it's entirely feasible that her rapist could block the adoption.

No, it isn't. There are no laws which allow for fathers, provided they are not legally listed as the child's father on the birth certificate (and why the hell would a rape victim do that? Marital rape, I suppose, but then she has bigger issues), to block the adoption of their child if the mother chooses to do so.

[Proctopeo]

We don't force her to be. Even if she can't get an abortion because of asshole politicians, she can give the child up for adoption.

And if she doesn't give it up for adoption?

Men are given no option to abrogate their responsibility.

There are definitely sexist adoption laws which penalize men which should be rewritten, but in this example, it's entirely feasible that her rapist could block the adoption.

Assuming that is true, men don't really have any options, the last time I checked. Besides faking their own death and moving to another country, that is. We're talking things that don't involve murder, manslaughter, or kidnapping, obviously.

[Diopolis]

Because he knew this was a possibility going in, no matter how many precautions he took.

No he would not. Female contraceptives are significantly better at preventing pregnancies than condoms are, because there are failures due to defects in the manufacturing process, storage and application. Contraceptives lack these failures, which is why men are reliant on women taking them. Short of simply foregoing sex with women altogether, how can you make sure that the woman you are having sex with is telling you the truth when it comes to contraceptives? If she's lying, and depending on your circumstances, she very well might be, then that would constitute a form of rape as the man consented to sex but did not consent to a pregnancy.

More to the point, why should men be forced to support something that they never wanted in the first place or consented to? Women have the option of abdicating responsibilities for children through abortion and adoption, so why aren't men allowed to do the same?

Female contraceptives are only more reliable if they're used perfectly. Missing a pill by accident could conceivably happen, and probably does. Frequently. And, they're still not 100% reliable.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

No he would not. Female contraceptives are significantly better at preventing pregnancies than condoms are, because there are failures due to defects in the manufacturing process, storage and application. Contraceptives lack these failures, which is why men are reliant on women taking them. Short of simply foregoing sex with women altogether, how can you make sure that the woman you are having sex with is telling you the truth when it comes to contraceptives? If she's lying, and depending on your circumstances, she very well might be, then that would constitute a form of rape as the man consented to sex but did not consent to a pregnancy.

More to the point, why should men be forced to support something that they never wanted in the first place or consented to? Women have the option of abdicating responsibilities for children through abortion and adoption, so why aren't men allowed to do the same?

Female contraceptives are only more reliable if they're used perfectly. Missing a pill by accident could conceivably happen, and probably does. Frequently. And, they're still not 100% reliable.

Which means that even if a woman is telling the truth about being on the pill, he's still subject to whatever decision she makes about abortion/adoption if it fails.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Look folks. One of these days, we gotta come to an agreement that guess what - it tends to take two to get pregnant, and regardless of who ends up carrying the resulting fetus, both are equally responsible for its creation and the choices they made up to that point of agreeing to have sex - protected or not. No method is 100% guaranteed effective, other than never having sexual contact at all, right? These arguments of 'but whyyyyyy' and 'who ought to have more say/blame' really end up being rather tedious when you get right down to it.

Fair? Who said anything about any of this being fair, neh? Course it isn't fair, but it is what two people end up having to deal with when an unexpected or unplanned pregnancy happens - discussion and choices have to be made. And if one or the other chooses either not to discuss, or makes choices without the consent or input of the other, more problems happen, simple as that.

The responsible thing would be to sit down, weigh all the pros and cons, air all the concerns and questions, and get some informed answers to the latter before making any decisions that have long-term consequences. Unfortunately, not everyone is that responsible. Plenty are scared, feel guilty or worry about additional outside pressures, are just plain selfish, possibly angry, or many of the above all at once. Better education about How It's Made (TM) or what not could help, possibly. Making more preventative measure more readily available might help as well, whatever the arguments are for 'just gives them permission to have all the sex they want' that go along with it. Lessening the guilt factors wouldn't be amiss, more broadly informing people of their options and viable alternatives is another potential point to consider.

And along with all of this is giving people the right to make choices for their own bodies and reproductive systems once they are an adult, and able to legally consent to any methods used that have the potential to be permanent in nature, or imperfect in how they prevent pregnancies, or are invasive, have risks, etc. Male or female adults, doesn't matter.

We have a crappy system in place, we have a lot of history in blame, or expectations, or assumptions, or even misinformation to fight against in it all. But turning on one another and nitpicking further, trying to see who can claw their way ahead to get a better deal out of it for themselves, rather than think for a moment about the implications of being responsible for bringing into being a possible new independent life, is just shitty. And it accomplishes nothing. Especially the 'he said/she said' or 'because someone wronged me, forever shall I hate $gender and make every subsequent convo all about how evil they are' crap that keeps cropping up. No, not suggesting any personal experiences are irrelevant or unimportant, just that they may not be healthy to base all discussions on. So.

Once again, yes, men ought to have the right to get snipped so long as they are able to legally consent - and they ought to be provided with all the pertinent info when they're looking it, so they can make an informed decision. Same with women. Perhaps with enough effort at improving attitudes about consent, choices, education, etc, we won't have to keep rehashing so much of these issues for the rest of eternity, and we can all get down to just treating one another decently.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Once again, yes, men ought to have the right to get snipped so long as they are able to legally consent

Trouble is, even the ones who are too young to consent when they have sex still end up with child support bills anyway.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Once again, yes, men ought to have the right to get snipped so long as they are able to legally consent

Trouble is, even the ones who are too young to consent when they have sex still end up with child support bills anyway.

That's why we need other things in place, as were mentioned in my previous post - education, access to preventative measures, access to counseling etc if necessary, access to assistance if necessary - all that. Younger folks need to understand the responsibility inherent in the act, and what they can or can't do about it all. You're ready for sex? You ought to be ready for the potential outcomes, or at the very least, be ready to make informed choices about how you're going to go about it all, especially if you are actively trying to avoid pregnancy.

Cause, effect. Action, accountability. Not always nice, not always feels fair, but that is how it tends to go.

[Costa Fierro]

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?

If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, does this mean she's not responsible for any child that might result from the pregnancy?

No she wouldn't be. I don't see how you could interpret that otherwise.

Female contraceptives are only more reliable if they're used perfectly. Missing a pill by accident could conceivably happen, and probably does. Frequently. And, they're still not 100% reliable.

They are much more reliable than condoms. Condoms are 98% effective, which still leaves a two percent chance of something going wrong. The failure rate for female contraceptives is 0.05%. Missing a pill and refusing to take one are essentially one in the same, as we have to rely on the woman's word about which is the case, and she isn't going to come clean and tell her partner she deliberately missed taking contraceptives in order to become pregnant.

The fact of the matter is we should not have men rely on women to protect them from a life they they don't want. Personally, issues like this drives up the numbers of men becoming MGTOW, so I'm more than happy for the potential pool of exploitable men to be reduced by as much as possible. But, men shouldn't have to become celibate just to live the live the way they want to. Men shouldn't have to fight for basic reproductive rights.