NATION

PASSWORD

What safeguards are there against poverty for teenage dads?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

On whose behalf does child support law carve no leniency for scenarios like the OP?

Male voters under category x, female voters under category y
1
50%
Male voters under category y, female voters under category x
0
No votes
Male and female voters under category x
0
No votes
Male and female voters under category y
1
50%
Male and female voters under category z (please specify)
0
No votes
Male voters under category z, (please specify) female voters of categories x and/or y
0
No votes
Female voters under category z, (please specify) male voters of categories x and/or y
0
No votes
Lobbyists with a vested interest in over-ruling popular opinion on this matter (please specify)
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 2

User avatar
Dakini
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23086
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Dakini » Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:47 pm

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:
Dakini wrote:If I hadn't seen the OP before, I'd wonder why he's so hung up on poverty among teenage fathers when teenage mothers are much more affected and impoverished by teenage pregnancy

I'll look into your link when I get a chance, but one point I can already address even just from your description of the link is that at no point did I claim teenage mothers weren't in poverty. But they did choose poverty over delaying motherhood,

Except in places where teenagers have to receive parental consent to have an abortion.

Or in places where abortion is inaccessible.

Or in places where abortion is illegal.

Or in places where abortion is so restricted that it's practically illegal.

Or teenagers whose parents and/or partners pressure them into not aborting.

Or teenagers who are lied to about abortion (e.g. there are people who claim that abortion causes cancer and infertility).

And so on and so on.

There are a lot of reasons that women (especially young women) who would otherwise have an abortion do not end up having one.

User avatar
GuessTheAltAccount
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1582
Founded: Apr 27, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby GuessTheAltAccount » Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:58 pm

Dakini wrote:
GuessTheAltAccount wrote:I'll look into your link when I get a chance, but one point I can already address even just from your description of the link is that at no point did I claim teenage mothers weren't in poverty. But they did choose poverty over delaying motherhood,

Except in places where teenagers have to receive parental consent to have an abortion.

Or in places where abortion is inaccessible.

Or in places where abortion is illegal.

Or in places where abortion is so restricted that it's practically illegal.

Or teenagers whose parents and/or partners pressure them into not aborting.

Or teenagers who are lied to about abortion (e.g. there are people who claim that abortion causes cancer and infertility).

And so on and so on.

There are a lot of reasons that women (especially young women) who would otherwise have an abortion do not end up having one.

Right, but if they discuss this matter before having sex and she claims in spite of all of this either that she would abort, that she would give away the baby, or that she wouldn't need his help (financially or otherwise) in raising it, is it really his fault if she changes her mind and/or didn't mean it in the first place?

That making a promise she cannot keep is on her would be accepted in almost any other context. (With the possible exception of politicians, and even then only in the eyes of their most fanatical supporters.) So why is what she said before sex not a factor in this?
Last edited by GuessTheAltAccount on Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 71630
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:02 pm

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:
Dakini wrote:Except in places where teenagers have to receive parental consent to have an abortion.

Or in places where abortion is inaccessible.

Or in places where abortion is illegal.

Or in places where abortion is so restricted that it's practically illegal.

Or teenagers whose parents and/or partners pressure them into not aborting.

Or teenagers who are lied to about abortion (e.g. there are people who claim that abortion causes cancer and infertility).

And so on and so on.

There are a lot of reasons that women (especially young women) who would otherwise have an abortion do not end up having one.

Right, but if they discuss this matter before having sex and she claims in spite of all of this either that she would abort, that she would give away the baby, or that she wouldn't need his help (financially or otherwise) in raising it, is it really his fault if she changes her mind and/or didn't mean it in the first place?

That making a promise she cannot keep is on her would be accepted in almost any other context. (With the possible exception of politicians, and even then only in the eyes of their most fanatical supporters.) So why is what she said before sex not a factor in this?

First, I don't believe those conversations occur on any kind of regular basis.

Second, whether they do or not is irrelevant. The current status quo is that women are never ever outside of extremely rare and unusual corner cases forced to become legal parents against their will, whether their biological portion is complete or not, and we should treat men the same way we treat women for the sake of equality.
Last edited by Galloism on Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
GuessTheAltAccount
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1582
Founded: Apr 27, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby GuessTheAltAccount » Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:09 pm

Galloism wrote:
GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Right, but if they discuss this matter before having sex and she claims in spite of all of this either that she would abort, that she would give away the baby, or that she wouldn't need his help (financially or otherwise) in raising it, is it really his fault if she changes her mind and/or didn't mean it in the first place?

That making a promise she cannot keep is on her would be accepted in almost any other context. (With the possible exception of politicians, and even then only in the eyes of their most fanatical supporters.) So why is what she said before sex not a factor in this?

First, I don't believe those conversations occur on any kind of regular basis.

Second, whether they do or not is irrelevant. The current status quo is that women are never ever outside of extremely rare and unusual corner cases forced to become legal parents against their will, whether their biological portion is complete or not, and we should treat men the same way we treat women for the sake of equality.

I think some modicum of distinction between "dragging a guy out of the middle class and into poverty through outright deceit, depriving the world of another scientist or engineer" and "seeking some compensation from a guy who got into her pants through deceit of his own that he would stay and raise the kid with her" might be merited, though I'm a little uncertain on how far society should go with the latter. If we go easy on teenagers who commit literal crimes, I'm not sure how much harsher we need to be on having been a dishonest bastard. I don't think I would've gone THAT far with the lies, but I definitely regret the extent to which I was dishonest in my teen years and I'd hate to be judged by it in my adult ones.

I'm also left wondering; why do people who think boys and girls are equally horny also think boys are more likely to deceive a girl to get into her pants than she is to get him into hers?

Although I also like Page's notion of a collectivized child support to which the rich owe more. But it's still a matter of pure chance which rich people's sex partners happen to keep the baby as well.

By the way, your Daily Mail link wasn't working. Here's the Wayback Machine version.
Last edited by GuessTheAltAccount on Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Nilokeras
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1975
Founded: Jul 14, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Nilokeras » Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:45 pm

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:While cutting down on all potential reasons for poverty is the ideal, the reality is that even progressives seem to have a blind spot on this issue, *snip*


'Even progressives don't support me in this fight against the other crab for that tasty scrap'

User avatar
Luminesa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 59177
Founded: Dec 09, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Luminesa » Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:28 pm

I hate that ya’ll are having a genuine conversation. This is a joke thread. OP wrote a thread that looks like science fiction. Stop taking ya’ll selves so seriously.
Catholic, pro-life, and proud of it. I prefer my debates on religion, politics, and sports with some coffee and a little Aquinas and G.K. CHESTERTON here and there. :3
Unofficial #1 fan of the Who Dat Nation.
"I'm just a singer of simple songs, I'm not a real political man. I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you the difference in Iraq and Iran. But I know Jesus, and I talk to God, and I remember this from when I was young:
faith, hope and love are some good things He gave us...
and the greatest is love."
-Alan Jackson
Help the Ukrainian people, here's some sources!
Help bring home First Nation girls! Now with more ways to help!
Jesus loves all of His children in Eastern Europe - pray for peace.

User avatar
Stellar Colonies
Senator
 
Posts: 3710
Founded: Mar 27, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Stellar Colonies » Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:23 pm

It could certainly stand some improvement.
Native of The East Pacific and Northern California
Opinions and Puppets
If you want a mental image of me: straight(?) white male.

I try to be objective, but I do have some biases.

I don't think the political compass is
fully accurate, but here are my results:

X-Axis: -5.38
Y-Axis: -2.62

Also, I'm diagnosed as a high-functioning autistic.
Stellar Colonies is a loose confederacy comprised from most of the human-settled parts of the galaxy.

Ida Station is the only Confederate member state permitted to join the WA.

Add 1200 years for the date I use.

User avatar
Bear Stearns
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11241
Founded: Dec 02, 2018
Capitalizt

Postby Bear Stearns » Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:12 am

Their options are pretty much poverty or join the military.
The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. is a New York-based global investment bank, securities trading and brokerage firm. Its main business areas are capital markets, investment banking, wealth management and global clearing services. Bear Stearns was founded as an equity trading house on May Day 1923 by Joseph Ainslie Bear, Robert B. Stearns and Harold C. Mayer with $500,000 in capital.
383 Madison Ave,
New York, NY 10017
Vince Vaughn

User avatar
Esternial
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53855
Founded: May 09, 2009
Democratic Socialists

Postby Esternial » Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:27 am

Free vasectomies for everyone!

User avatar
Chessmistress
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5101
Founded: Mar 16, 2015
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Chessmistress » Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:31 am

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:A few years ago on this site, the average NSer's response to a hypothetical about a guy having sex with a girl he met at a party but having to drop out to get a job to pay child support was met with "he should've gotten a vasectomy instead."

That moment gave me the impression that this debate consisted solely of:

Side A: Believes there should be exceptions for guys whose career aspirations would be ruined, and/or who'd be thrown into poverty, by having to pay child support bills, if she said before sex that she wouldn't keep the baby even if she got pregnant...

Side B: Thinks it is reasonable to expect every teenage boy to choose between abstinence that gets them mistaken for having been too undesirable to get laid, a vasectomy that shuts them out from future biological fatherhood, or a risk of live-ruining poverty every time he has sex.



During the last a couple of years I slightly changed my mind on such matter, also because I have a son who is growing.

My idea is that both positions are nonsensical and reality-fled.

Either you give to people - both women and men - the right to parental surrender.
Or you force people to support their babes, and in such case there's no need to worry and discuss: they have an higher duty, either they'll be in compliance or they'll be in jail. And nobody should care if they're "ruined" in the process.

The first choice is for those who hold dear the rights of adults and don't worry about slightly raising taxation (to support the babies whose parents surrendered their rights).

The second choice is for those who hold dear the right of Jeff Bezos to have a starfleet and to go where no clone of Jean-Luc Picard has gone before.

As a feminist I think that we did a big error supporting the right to have a starfleet while trying to compensate through "dads' duties": it was a coward choice and it will backfire.
We should focus where the real money is, who cares about unwillingly poor men? Jeff Bezos should pay if some poor guy don't want to pay for his own baby.
Jeff Bezos should pay for all people who decide to surrend parental rights, Jeff Bezos and all the ultra-riches like him.

All other options make no sense, they're just chit-chat whose goal is to not solve the problem and keep things as they are.
OOC:
Radical Feminist, caring about the oppressed gender, that's why I have a strong sense of justice.

PRO:
Radical Feminism (proudly SWERF - moderately TERF),
Gender abolitionism,
birth control and population control,
affirmative ongoing VERBAL consent,
death penalty for rapists.

AGAINST:
patriarchy,
pornography,
heteronormativity,
domestic violence and femicide.


Favorite Quotes: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=ches ... /id=403173

User avatar
Saiwania
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21014
Founded: Jun 30, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Saiwania » Fri Jan 28, 2022 11:56 am

Chessmistress wrote:We should focus where the real money is, who cares about unwillingly poor men? Jeff Bezos should pay if some poor guy don't want to pay for his own baby.
Jeff Bezos should pay for all people who decide to surrend parental rights, Jeff Bezos and all the ultra-riches like him.


Well, a major weakness of that proposition is that it completely goes against personal responsibility for your own outcomes. It won't sit well with a lot of people that people in lower classes will be consequence free because they can assume that any dumb poverty creating thing they do, will just be paid for by the successful, rather than the state actually making them contribute financially to their own children for when or if they have income to garnish. They're the one that got the mother pregnant after all (usually speaking).

It sort of takes away from the incentive to become rich in the first place, if the state can reverse all of your own success/progress for the benefit of the most irresponsible or unprofitable within society.

Jeff Bezos may not have physically done work, but still created more wealth than most other people in creating a business that people want to pay their money to. He found ways to get other people to make super fast product delivery possible.

Yes, he has more resources, but logistically speaking even he can't pay for everyone else on Earth. To stay rich, most rich people will unleash an army of lawyers to reduce tax liability and if that doesn't work, will relocate to a lower tax location and will change their operations as to be beyond the reach of those they're trying to flee from.

They're not stupid enough as to not protect their own status/fortune. They're on top for a reason.
Last edited by Saiwania on Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:08 pm, edited 3 times in total.
All life is a battle, even to the last breath.
Showing mercy to an enemy creates a spiral of destruction.
Sacrificing your strength is the path of a fool.

User avatar
Rusozak
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5141
Founded: Jun 14, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Rusozak » Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:34 pm

Esternial wrote:Free vasectomies for everyone!


Damn, beat me to it. Well I was gonna say condoms but still.
NOTE: This nation's government style, policies, and opinions in roleplay or forum 7 does not represent my true beliefs. It is purely for the enjoyment of the game.

User avatar
Hemakral
Diplomat
 
Posts: 901
Founded: Nov 02, 2021
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Hemakral » Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:56 pm

Luminesa wrote:I hate that ya’ll are having a genuine conversation.

y'all. it's y'all
Last edited by Hemakral on Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
._.

User avatar
GuessTheAltAccount
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1582
Founded: Apr 27, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby GuessTheAltAccount » Fri Jan 28, 2022 4:04 pm

Rusozak wrote:
Esternial wrote:Free vasectomies for everyone!


Damn, beat me to it. Well I was gonna say condoms but still.

Condoms can break. And vasectomies can fail in their reversal.

Also, how many doctors even would perform vasectomies on teenagers in the first place, especially without the parents' permission?

User avatar
Luminesa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 59177
Founded: Dec 09, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Luminesa » Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:32 pm

Hemakral wrote:
Luminesa wrote:I hate that ya’ll are having a genuine conversation.

y'all. it's y'all

Don't tell me how to correct my improper Southern grammar dagnabit!
Catholic, pro-life, and proud of it. I prefer my debates on religion, politics, and sports with some coffee and a little Aquinas and G.K. CHESTERTON here and there. :3
Unofficial #1 fan of the Who Dat Nation.
"I'm just a singer of simple songs, I'm not a real political man. I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you the difference in Iraq and Iran. But I know Jesus, and I talk to God, and I remember this from when I was young:
faith, hope and love are some good things He gave us...
and the greatest is love."
-Alan Jackson
Help the Ukrainian people, here's some sources!
Help bring home First Nation girls! Now with more ways to help!
Jesus loves all of His children in Eastern Europe - pray for peace.

User avatar
Rusozak
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5141
Founded: Jun 14, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Rusozak » Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:56 pm

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:
Rusozak wrote:
Damn, beat me to it. Well I was gonna say condoms but still.

Condoms can break. And vasectomies can fail in their reversal.

Also, how many doctors even would perform vasectomies on teenagers in the first place, especially without the parents' permission?


I think it was a joke. The vasectomy part at least. But it illustrates prevention as the best solution. There's probably a study linking education about safe sex to fewer teen parents.
NOTE: This nation's government style, policies, and opinions in roleplay or forum 7 does not represent my true beliefs. It is purely for the enjoyment of the game.

User avatar
Hemakral
Diplomat
 
Posts: 901
Founded: Nov 02, 2021
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Hemakral » Sat Jan 29, 2022 8:56 am

Luminesa wrote:
Hemakral wrote:y'all. it's y'all

Don't tell me how to correct my improper Southern grammar dagnabit!

But if I don't tell random people on the internet what they're doing wrong, who will? :p
._.

User avatar
Thepeopl
Minister
 
Posts: 2417
Founded: Feb 24, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby Thepeopl » Sat Jan 29, 2022 2:36 pm

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:
Rusozak wrote:
Damn, beat me to it. Well I was gonna say condoms but still.

Condoms can break. And vasectomies can fail in their reversal.

Also, how many doctors even would perform vasectomies on teenagers in the first place, especially without the parents' permission?


Well, there is this:

https://time.com/4661209/male-birth-control-gel/

Two small injections to block the vas deferens

User avatar
GuessTheAltAccount
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1582
Founded: Apr 27, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby GuessTheAltAccount » Sat Jan 29, 2022 4:08 pm

Rusozak wrote:
GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Condoms can break. And vasectomies can fail in their reversal.

Also, how many doctors even would perform vasectomies on teenagers in the first place, especially without the parents' permission?


I think it was a joke. The vasectomy part at least. But it illustrates prevention as the best solution. There's probably a study linking education about safe sex to fewer teen parents.

Key word, "fewer." Not "zero." The law doesn't carve any exception for a guy whose condom broke, whose partner claimed she wouldn't keep the baby if the condom broke, etc... no matter the economic circumstances this would drive him into, let alone whether this would deprive the world of another scientist or engineer.
Last edited by GuessTheAltAccount on Sat Jan 29, 2022 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Diopolis
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17293
Founded: May 15, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Diopolis » Sat Jan 29, 2022 6:41 pm

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Side B: Thinks it is reasonable to expect every teenage boy to choose between abstinence that gets them mistaken for having been too undesirable to get laid, a vasectomy that shuts them out from future biological fatherhood, or a risk of live-ruining poverty every time he has sex.

Less than 40% of high school seniors have had sex. Clearly "not having sex" is a reasonable expectation of teenaged boys because the majority of them don't.
Texas nationalist, 3rd positionist, radical social conservative, post-liberal.
Did the moon landings end because there's a whites-only Nazi UFO base there and NASA didn't want to have to explain why they would never send a black astronaut? Almost certainly not. But it's less depressing than the reality that the moon landings were pointless. So too with all our great works.

User avatar
Vellocatus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 119
Founded: Sep 30, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Vellocatus » Sat Jan 29, 2022 6:58 pm

Rusozak wrote:
Esternial wrote:Free vasectomies for everyone!


Damn, beat me to it. Well I was gonna say condoms but still.


The average American male doesn’t seem to know what a condom is TBH.
Unapologetically draconian.
No compromise.
Defund universities.
Marx was a bitch.
Cope and seethe.

User avatar
Chessmistress
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5101
Founded: Mar 16, 2015
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Chessmistress » Sun Jan 30, 2022 3:33 am

Saiwania wrote:
Chessmistress wrote:We should focus where the real money is, who cares about unwillingly poor men? Jeff Bezos should pay if some poor guy don't want to pay for his own baby.
Jeff Bezos should pay for all people who decide to surrend parental rights, Jeff Bezos and all the ultra-riches like him.


Well, a major weakness of that proposition is that it completely goes against personal responsibility for your own outcomes.


Like "too big to fail"?

A child is a person, not a "personal outcome" like creating a debt.

Saiwania wrote:It won't sit well with a lot of people that people in lower classes will be consequence free because they can assume that any dumb poverty creating thing they do,


Wrong: surrending parental rights should be a right for every person, even for Jeff Bezos.
It's even likely that if such right will be enacted, then the riches will use it even more than the poors, at least proportionally more.

Saiwania wrote:....


"Making slightly harder to have a full starfleet" = "every rich is gonna falling in a state of deep depression and nobody's gonna becoming rich again" :rofl:
The worry about "by this way nobody's gonna becoming rich" is so hyperbolic that is :rofl:

Saiwania wrote:Jeff Bezos may not have physically done work, but still created more wealth than most other people in creating a business that people want to pay their money to. He found ways to get other people to make super fast product delivery possible.

Yes, he has more resources, but logistically speaking even he can't pay for everyone else on Earth. To stay rich, most rich people will unleash an army of lawyers to reduce tax liability and if that doesn't work, will relocate to a lower tax location and will change their operations as to be beyond the reach of those they're trying to flee from.

They're not stupid enough as to not protect their own status/fortune. They're on top for a reason.


I tought that they were a little precious weak things to be protected by the evil hordes: you just said then if we threat to take away 1% or 2% of their money then they're gonna falling in depression and then "nobody is gonna becoming rich" again.

You seems confused: either Jeff Bezos is a special precious little weak wallflower who can't stand the State taking away 1% or 2% of his money, or Jeff Bezos is very powerful and also cunning.
He can't be both ways at the same time.
Last edited by Chessmistress on Sun Jan 30, 2022 3:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
OOC:
Radical Feminist, caring about the oppressed gender, that's why I have a strong sense of justice.

PRO:
Radical Feminism (proudly SWERF - moderately TERF),
Gender abolitionism,
birth control and population control,
affirmative ongoing VERBAL consent,
death penalty for rapists.

AGAINST:
patriarchy,
pornography,
heteronormativity,
domestic violence and femicide.


Favorite Quotes: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=ches ... /id=403173

User avatar
Chessmistress
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5101
Founded: Mar 16, 2015
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Chessmistress » Sun Jan 30, 2022 3:38 am

Galloism wrote:Second, whether they do or not is irrelevant. The current status quo is that women are never ever outside of extremely rare and unusual corner cases forced to become legal parents against their will, whether their biological portion is complete or not, and we should treat men the same way we treat women for the sake of equality.


Almost this.
But before giving men the right to surrend their legal duties, we should focus on granting all the necessary to the rejected babies.
I think that Feminism should focus on this, then MRA will do their thing.

There are people who think both sides, Feminism and MRA, are fools, and they're mocking us, both of us.
This have to stop: I'm not so stupid to think that a bunch of deadbeat dads who will hide behind such reform are a major problem compared to a guy who during a poverty-spreading pandemic and just after a very expensive divorce had enough money to launch his own starship.
OOC:
Radical Feminist, caring about the oppressed gender, that's why I have a strong sense of justice.

PRO:
Radical Feminism (proudly SWERF - moderately TERF),
Gender abolitionism,
birth control and population control,
affirmative ongoing VERBAL consent,
death penalty for rapists.

AGAINST:
patriarchy,
pornography,
heteronormativity,
domestic violence and femicide.


Favorite Quotes: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=ches ... /id=403173

User avatar
Incelastan
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 100
Founded: Nov 02, 2018
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Incelastan » Sun Jan 30, 2022 8:10 am

Diopolis wrote:
GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Side B: Thinks it is reasonable to expect every teenage boy to choose between abstinence that gets them mistaken for having been too undesirable to get laid, a vasectomy that shuts them out from future biological fatherhood, or a risk of live-ruining poverty every time he has sex.

Less than 40% of high school seniors have had sex. Clearly "not having sex" is a reasonable expectation of teenaged boys because the majority of them don't.


It's not by choice. Given the chance to get laid, almost any teenage lad would go for it. Almost, because there are Mormons, asexuals, etc. And of course, gay sex won't produce offspring, so that's always an option that past societies have encouraged (Sparta, Athens, etc.). But since the majority of lads aren't gay, quite a few aren't even bi, that might be a non-starter for many of them.
No longer LARPing as an incel.

User avatar
Incelastan
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 100
Founded: Nov 02, 2018
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Incelastan » Sun Jan 30, 2022 8:11 am

Chessmistress wrote:
Galloism wrote:Second, whether they do or not is irrelevant. The current status quo is that women are never ever outside of extremely rare and unusual corner cases forced to become legal parents against their will, whether their biological portion is complete or not, and we should treat men the same way we treat women for the sake of equality.


Almost this.
But before giving men the right to surrend their legal duties, we should focus on granting all the necessary to the rejected babies.
I think that Feminism should focus on this, then MRA will do their thing.

There are people who think both sides, Feminism and MRA, are fools, and they're mocking us, both of us.
This have to stop: I'm not so stupid to think that a bunch of deadbeat dads who will hide behind such reform are a major problem compared to a guy who during a poverty-spreading pandemic and just after a very expensive divorce had enough money to launch his own starship.


Wow, this is so not the take that I expected from a radical feminist, but it's welcome. And yes, eat the damn rich!
No longer LARPing as an incel.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: American Legionaries, Big Jim P, Diuhon, Elejamie, Ethel mermania, Fartsniffage, Future Cascadia, Galloism, Great Heathen Air Force, Gun Manufacturers, ImperialRussia, Kerwa, LeasI, Meadowfields, Old Tyrannia, Sweitchland, The Front Range, The United Penguin Commonwealth, Unitarian Universalism

Advertisement

Remove ads