patrick.net

How about "Cum Now, Consent Later"?

Ironman says

Heraclitusstudent says

Nothing cools a first date faster than "could you please change the diaper of that one while I get some drinks?"

That also holds true for teenage girls who think it will be "cool" to have a kid, only to find out later, single guys avoid you like the plague.

I heard that the teenage pregnancy rates have been dropping for a long time but dropped off more drastically after the single moms reality tv show

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/mtv-prevents-teen-pregnancy-by-shaming-single-moms

MMR says

single moms reality tv show

Perhaps reality TV is not just a waste of time. If girls see what a poor choice single moms have made, they will be less inclined to make the same choice.

rando says

MMR says

single moms reality tv show

Perhaps reality TV is not just a waste of time. If girls see what a poor choice single moms have made, they will be less inclined to make the same choice.

Misguided article suggests that Perhaps reality TV is not just a waste of time. If girls see what a poor choice single moms have made, they will be less inclined to make the same choice.hike show may be effective, that shaming is not a good strategy

Patrick says

A man should have the choice to refuse to pay all child support if he did not explicitly ask for the woman to have the child. Let's call it the affirmative consent law, requiring men to give affirmative consent to paternity. ;-)

This would achieve equality with a woman's "her body her choice" right to ignore the man's request for an abortion or to give the child up for adoption. Rights which only women have.

If she has the right to refuse responsibility for the baby, he should also have the right to refuse responsibility for the baby.

Discuss.

#politics

Alright, I'll finally chime in. Men have ability to be responsible. I was a single adult from age 18 to age 40. I made reasonable money from age 27 to age 40 purposely eschewed relationships during that time. I had sex without a condom exactly twice during that time, both with women I already knew before any relations took place, both were older(in their 40's), both I had 100% knowledge they were on birth control and std free. Every other time I used a condom.

And wah lah...I have no kids and no std's...ever.

The guys who have kids by "accident" are generally lower intelligence and say stupid stuff like "yeah, I know, but do you know how good it feels without a condom?"

While men should not be held to account for kids that aren't theirs, we also shouldn't be creating laws to help imbeciles deal with a lack of common sense.

Fucking White Male says

While men should not be held to account for kids that aren't theirs, we also shouldn't be creating laws to help imbeciles deal with a lack of common sense.

Yet we created abortion rights to help female imbeciles deal with a lack of common sense. A new right only for them.

Just asking for equal rights for men.

Dan8267 says

The fact that at least some people must reproduce in order for our species to continue does not mean that every person has to reproduce to avoid human extinction

Reproduction just gets dominated by often dumber people who don't rationalize against population growth; those who do (rationalize/make excuses in favor of childlessness) get dominated by those who don't, like in Europe, UK and France. The disenfranchised natives at sub fertility replacement are getting mad and voted for brexit because writing on wall(losing influence/voice in native country). Frexit might be next

Ironman says

chance that's related to the growth in social media, where there is less actually physical interaction and more interaction via text, twitter, facebook, Instagram, etc?

I'd say that has something to do with it although, people do use sites like tinder and online dating to hook up with people, but not sure that those particular sites are used in large numbers by high schoolers

rando says

Fucking White Male says

While men should not be held to account for kids that aren't theirs, we also shouldn't be creating laws to help imbeciles deal with a lack of common sense.

Yet we created abortion rights to help female imbeciles deal with a lack of common sense. A new right only for them.

Just asking for equal rights for men.

Well abortion isn't going anywhere. Really stupid people try to convince other really stupid people that the repeal of roe vs wade will end abortions, but abortion will still be legal in 75% of the states.

Giving men a nebulous right doesn't particularly help the situation. A better solution is men simply reaching out to other men and encouraging self responsibility. I have held a belief for a very long time that many of the issues men have in our society is due to lack of adult male friendships.

Fucking White Male says

"yeah, I know, but do you know how good it feels without a condom?

To be fair, that statement is the truth for most, men and women. Happens often that the woman wants to go without as well for better experience. It's also a good reason for a committed relationship. It has often been claimed that the reason there is only a pill for women is that men would never take birth-control if it was available to them so pharma does not invest into it. That is as usual not true as most arguments used by feminists. Truth is that is is much much harder to come even close to a reliable birth control pill (oral route) for men, as it only takes on intact sperm to make it past the goalpost to fertilize the egg. If and when it reaches the market, with negligible side-effects (the tested injections that reduce sperm count may leave the man infertile for a prolonged time and your gf would not want that), I am pretty sure many men will take it.

MMR says

Reproduction just gets dominated by often dumber people who don't rationalize against population growth; those who do (rationalize/make excuses in favor of childlessness) get dominated by those who don't, like in Europe, UK and France.

Another great reason to require a license to become a parent.

Dan8267 says

Another great reason to require a license to become a parent.

why not - one more step towards total surveillance + control state

FP says

Dan8267 says

Another great reason to require a license to become a parent.

why not - one more step towards total surveillance + control state

So licensing parents is totalitarianism, but holding people indefinitely without trial and torturing them isn't? I think you're looking at the wrong signs.

Dan8267 says

So licensing parents is totalitarianism, but holding people indefinitely without trial and torturing them isn't?

both are

So then the mere existence of Child Protective Services is also totalitarianism?

just any guy says

Do you believe abortion should be legal?

legality and morality are two different things. Where does your question fit in with my comment?

Dan8267 says

So then the mere existence of Child Protective Services is also totalitarianism?

Not really. It is control for sure, but in protection of life that already exists. There has to be compromise between safety, protection and feeedom. Certain freeedoms are very fundamental, and removing them goes too far.

FP says

Dan8267 says

So then the mere existence of Child Protective Services is also totalitarianism?

Not really. It is control for sure, but in protection of life that already exists. There has to be compromise between safety, protection and feeedom. Certain freeedoms are very fundamental, and removing them goes too far.

Licensing parenting is essentially doing what CPS is designed to do, but being proactive and preventing the problems in the first place.

Having children is not a right. Felons are prevented from having children. So are the people in Gitmo and Abu Grab. Men can't have the right to have children because they must convince a woman to reproduce with them. For all men, having children is a privilege.

Furthermore, why should we as a society value a person's desire to procreate more than the well being of the children he or she would produce? If reproduction were a right, then anti-incest laws violate that right. The entire purpose of anti-incest laws is to prevent deformed children. Why should we allow people who are utterly incapable of taking care of children to have them? Are you OK with a welfare queen having another child after she's already had eight because her desire to reproduce is more important then the well-being of her existing children, the new child she would create, the tax payer's dollars, and other people who will be denied financial support because the money when to this woman having another kid?

Dan8267 says

That's exactly like saying a woman who dresses provocatively is consenting to sex. They are both fucking stupid statements and for the exact same reason.

Consent is consent. Nothing else is consent.

Except that it's not like it at all. Wearing slutty clothing is just wearing slutty clothing. There is no natural result from dressing provocatively. Maybe you need to take a biology class again or something, but the natural result of having sex is a baby. Having sex is consent to the possibility of a baby. That's all there is to it. If you don't want to have a baby, don't have sex.

just any guy says

I agree. You can't have abortion be legal for women, but not allow men the same right to back out of the responsibility. Why do women get that choice and not men? If inserting my penis is consent to having a baby with the woman I'm nailing, then the woman has no right to ever have an abortion.

Considering we are biologically different, the system cannot be perfectly fair. Do you seriously think that if men carried babies, we wouldn't have the right to choose?

ch_tah2 says

Having sex is consent to the possibility of a baby. That's all there is to it.

That's absolute bullshit.

Consent

give permission for something to happen.

It is impossible to consent against your will by definition. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a man who consents to having sex is also consenting, even considering, having a baby and devoting his financial assets for the next 18 years to raising that baby. There is every reason to believe that most of the time men want to have sex, they want just to have sex and not to reproduce. If you don't understand that, then you are a moron.

You are trying to take away the relevance of a man's consent by falsely equating consent to have sex as consent to indenture servitude. This is exactly the same thing as falsely equating a woman's consent to be looked over with consent to have sex. You are giving a big fuck you to the will of the people whose rights you are trying to take away. Consent is about willful, non-coerced choice. Consent cannot be taken simply because you think a person should consent to X in order to get Y. That's the opposite of consent. That's force.

You are intellectually dishonest, and your position is morally and ethically reprehensible.

Why don't you have to integrity to say what you really mean, that the consent of a man should not be required to make him into a slave?

ch_tah2 says

just any guy says

I agree. You can't have abortion be legal for women, but not allow men the same right to back out of the responsibility. Why do women get that choice and not men? If inserting my penis is consent to having a baby with the woman I'm nailing, then the woman has no right to ever have an abortion.

Considering we are biologically different, the system cannot be perfectly fair. Do you seriously think that if men carried babies, we wouldn't have the right to choose?

Sure it can be fair. Biology has nothing to do with the argument we're making. It takes 2 people to make a baby. If a woman can back out and not accept responsibility, a man should have that same right unless the 2 are married and both consent to having a baby.

just any guy says

If a woman can back out and not accept responsibility, a man should have that same right unless the 2 are married and both consent to having a baby.

Agreed. If a man marries a woman with the intent of having children and then back out of it once she is pregnant, he can't retroactively withdraw his consent. Similarly, if a woman chooses to have sex with a man, she can't retroactively withdraw her consent because he didn't call her the next day. Consent can be withdrawn at any time, but never retroactively.

A woman who has had sex with a man many times can withdraw her consent for any sex in the future. The man has the right to dump her or divorce her if she does. A man can withdraw his consent to have children with a woman, but that woman has the right to dump him or divorce him if he does. It's symmetric.

Dan8267 says

Licensing parenting is essentially doing what CPS is designed to do, but being proactive and preventing the problems in the first place.

No, it is not the same. You cannot be certain in advance that there will or will not be problems and what they will be.

Dan8267 says

Having children is not a right. Felons are prevented from having children. So are the people in Gitmo and Abu Grab. Men can't have the right to have children because they must convince a woman to reproduce with them. For all men, having children is a privilege.

Prisoners are deprived of many rights. The fact that it takes a couple to reproduce does not mean that such a right cannot exist; it is a right for a couple to reproduce if they so wish, and to a person individually to be a part of such a couple.

Dan8267 says

If reproduction were a right, then anti-incest laws violate that right. The entire purpose of anti-incest laws is to prevent deformed children.

That is where the compromise "between safety, protection and freeedom" enters.

Dan8267 says

Why should we allow people who are utterly incapable of taking care of children to have them? Are you OK with a welfare queen having another child after she's already had eight because her desire to reproduce is more important then the well-being of her existing children, the new child she would create, the tax payer's dollars, and other people who will be denied financial support because the money when to this woman having another kid?

If that is the price to pay for certain freedoms that I consider basic - yes. I am not that selfish.

FP says

You cannot be certain in advance that there will or will not be problems and what they will be.

A single mother with no income who's living on welfare isn't prepared to be a parent. Period. So yes, you can tell in advance. Life isn't random. It is intelligible. You can find patterns. You can proactively solve problems.

FP says

Prisoners are deprived of many rights.

A right, by definition, cannot be taken away. A freedom that can be taken away is, by definition, a privilege.

FP says

That is where the compromise "between safety, protection and freeedom" enters.

It is no less an arbitrary line than where I'm drawing it.

FP says

If that is the price to pay for certain freedoms that I consider basic - yes.

The freedom to not be body cavity searched is far more basic than the freedom to reproduce when you cannot take care of the offspring.

ch_tah2 says

Having sex is consent to the possibility of a baby.

so this means if a woman agrees to go into a man's house, she consents to the possibility of rape?

don't want to get raped? don't go to his house, don't get in his car, etc.

Dan8267 says

So yes, you can tell in advance. Life isn't random.

Nonsense and you this very well. There are probabilities but not certainty.

Dan8267 says

A right, by definition, cannot be taken away. A freedom that can be taken away is, by definition, a privilege.

Tell me one right according to your definition that cannot be taken away.

Dan8267 says

The freedom to not be body cavity searched is far more basic than the freedom to reproduce when you cannot take care of the offspring.

Fine, that is your opinion. Mine is different. Since I have offspring and you don't + I have higher IQ than you, mine should count more than yours.

FP says

Nonsense and you this very well. There are probabilities but not certainty.

I hate to break this to you, but we execute people in this country and assign very long prison sentences based on far, far looser guesses about the truth. If certainty were a real requirement for slapping someone with a 20-year sentence, there would be near zero convictions. We bomb nations on the basis of much less accurate knowledge.

FP says

Dan8267 says

A right, by definition, cannot be taken away. A freedom that can be taken away is, by definition, a privilege.

Tell me one right according to your definition that cannot be taken away.

That is a failing of our society. Just because we don't have rights in practice, say because a cop can murder an innocent civilian and face no legal consequences, does not mean we should not have rights.

We should have the right, not the privilege, to vote. Felons should be able to vote while in prison. We should have the right to due process. Suspected terrorists should get due process. We should have the right of Habeas Corpus. All people who are or ever were inprisioned in Gitmo should be able to have a trial and to sue the federal government for human rights violations including torture.

This is what it means to be a nation of laws. Just because the United States government is a shit government that doesn't act according to the principles we all claim to uphold, doesn't mean we shouldn't change our government so that it does and punish individual government agents who violate these principles.

FP says

Fine, that is your opinion. Mine is different. Since I have offspring and you don't + I have higher IQ than you, mine should count more than yours.

Honey, don't get your panties in a twist. We're debating a moral and ethical issue. Of course such a debate is going to heavily involve value judgements. If you cannot handle that, then don't engage in debate. Leave that to the adults.

Furthermore, you clearly are not more intelligent than me or you would not have made such a childish comment. Nor does having crapped out a kid give you more rights or the moral high ground. If your ego can't handle a discussion of values and morality, then quite frankly, you seem like another crappy parent who probably shouldn't be one in the first place. If you can't discuss and advocate principles at the level of a mature adult, then how are you setting a good example for your kid?

Dan8267 says

Furthermore, you clearly are not more intelligent than me or you would not have made such a childish comment....

Hahaha, a little trigger I left for you. Take it easy man (but if you have doubts about the IQ part, we can set up a little competition next time I'm in FL :) )

Dan8267 says

That is a failing of our society.

Now this is bla-bla-bla.

I think the discussion is exhausted at this point.

FP says

Hahaha, a little trigger I left for you.

Get over yourself. Just because I point out your immaturity and made you look foolish, doesn't mean you invoked an emotional response in me other than pity.

FP says

I think the discussion is exhausted at this point.

On that we agree. I have refuted everything you said, and you are adding nothing to the conversation.

Dan8267 says

ch_tah2 says

Having sex is consent to the possibility of a baby. That's all there is to it.

That's absolute bullshit.

Consent

give permission for something to happen.

It is impossible to consent against your will by definition. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a man who consents to having sex is also consenting, even considering, having a baby and devoting his financial assets for the next 18 years to raising that baby. There is every reason to believe that most of the time men want to have sex, they want just to have sex and not to reproduce. If you don't understand that, then you are a moron.

You are trying to take away the relevance of a man's consent by falsely equating consent to have sex as consent to indenture servitude. This is...

You can throw a hissy fit all you want. The reality is that the natural result of sex is a baby. If you don't understand that, I can't help you.

RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks says

ch_tah2 says

Having sex is consent to the possibility of a baby.

so this means if a woman agrees to go into a man's house, she consents to the possibility of rape?

don't want to get raped? don't go to his house, don't get in his car, etc.

WTF are you talking about? The natural result of going into someone's house is not being raped. The natural result of having sex is a baby. If you guys are too stupid to foresee that sex = baby, then you probably shouldn't be having sex at all.

Dan8267 says

ch_tah2 says

You can throw a hissy fit all you want.

Translation: I cannot make a rational argument against what you said, so I'll try character assassination and hope the audience is stupid enough to fall for my trick.

No. It was in response to these gems of yours (ahem...character assassination...):
"If you don't understand that, then you are a moron.
You are giving a big fuck you to the will of the people whose rights you are trying to take away.
You are intellectually dishonest, and your position is morally and ethically reprehensible.
Why don't you have to integrity to say what you really mean, that the consent of a man should not be required to make him into a slave?"

RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks says

it is the man's sperm. he should be able to do terminate it as he wishes.

He can. It's called a hand (or a sock if you prefer).

ch_tah2 says

RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks says

ch_tah2 says

Having sex is consent to the possibility of a baby.

so this means if a woman agrees to go into a man's house, she consents to the possibility of rape?

don't want to get raped? don't go to his house, don't get in his car, etc.

WTF are you talking about? The natural result of going into someone's house is not being raped. The natural result of having sex is a baby. If you guys are too stupid to foresee that sex = baby, then you probably shouldn't be having sex at all.

sex does not neccessary equate baby, only dumb feminists think so. there are drugs and contraception.

having sex does not automatically means consent to having a baby. don't be a moron.

having sex means consent to an abortion, period.

ch_tah2 says

Patrick's argument is to either force abortion or not pay.

Patrick is not in favor of forcing women to have an abortion. You are clearly misinterpreting his words. I don't know if that's intentional on your part or not, but you are wrong.

Patrick does point out the hypocrisy of given women unilaterally power on deciding whether or not to terminate a pregnancy while giving men no say in whether or not to raise the child. In effect, the man has no choice while the woman has absolute choice. If the man wants to become a father and the woman doesn't, he's screwed over. If the man doesn't want to become a father and the woman does, he again is screwed over. Patrick is absolutely correct in pointing out this hypocrisy. Pro-choice goes both ways. Both parents, regardless of their genitalia, should have choice. And whatever limits are placed on those choices, like deciding before the third trimester, should apply equally to both genders. Same rules regardless of sex.

Patrick most certainly is pro-choice, at least up to some point in the pregnancy, for both genders. There is nothing contradictory about that position. It would also be non-hypocritical to say that neither gender should have a choice because the unborn's rights take priority. The only hypocritical position is that one gender has absolute say and the other has none.

If you want to make a pro-life from conception argument, then go ahead, but that argument has nothing to do with equality of reproductive laws. Make a pro-life argument in the classic thread The abortion question answered. Turns out, both sides were wrong.

RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks says

having sex means consent to an abortion, period.

No offense, but you are a whack job. You don't make any sense.