« First « Previous Comments 64 - 103 of 335 Next » Last » Search these comments
[continue]
3. Environmental management is absolutely relevant to this discussion. It is immoral for one generation to deplete the natural resources and degrade the environment thus impoverishing all future generations. Half of all wildlife has been killed off in the past 40 years. Countless species are now lost forever. Repairing the damage done over the past four decades alone will take literally hundreds of thousands of years. That's longer than the human race has been around. How many generations have we already impoverished at current population levels. Of course this is relevant to both moral and practical considerations of reproduction.
Sex with a mid-thirties woman is EXTREMELY dangerous if she does not already have children.
I don't understand. Are you saying that any man would want to have sex with a woman over 30? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Funny Dan8276. Men will f&*k mud. No matter the age. :)
I guess I was implying, perhaps wrongly, that men are driven more by sex and women by the desire to have children. Childless women in their mid thirties are reaching the end of their potential child bearing period, and so their motivation is to bring that fetus to term no matter whether theirs was a one night stand or a long term arrangement. The female really will not make a judgement or decision that takes into account the "partner" - and legally they have that right. Men have no such corresponding right - we can only suggest or let them know we don't want the child, but that is legally meaningless and irrelevant. Yet, the man will likely provide the vast amount of money required to raise that child. (To be fair, though, if the woman does happen to have a higher income, that may actually be reversed. Note, however, man almost never gets custody in these out of wedlock births, and so there is always some payment transfer to the woman regardless of income disparity).
Funny Dan8276. Men will f&*k mud. No matter the age. :)
No. Not all men. Some of us are damn picky. Perhaps too picky, but certainly every guy has standards. The question is how low do they go.
I guess I was implying, perhaps wrongly, that men are driven more by sex and women by the desire to have children.
No, this is correct with one caveat. Men are interested in sex as a way of being interested in reproduction. However, men aren't necessarily interested in committing time and resources to raising the kid. In fact devoting such resources greatly diminishes sexual opportunities for men and thus opportunities to have additional children with additional women. Hence, if men can fuck a lot of women, they are compelled by evolutionary pressures to do so. It makes no sense for a man who is sexually attractive to be monogamous. It does for a woman because she can't bear more children by having more sexual partners. What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.
Childless women in their mid thirties are reaching the end of their potential child bearing period, and so their motivation is to bring that fetus to term no matter whether theirs was a one night stand or a long term arrangement. T
Yes, women reaching their reproductive end become desperate to reproduce if they haven't already. It's called the biological clock. And yes, women who cannot secure a long-term devoted mate won't give up selfish reproduction. They will selfishly bring a child into the world even if they cannot afford to. However, society should not encourage this with subsidies or male slavery. In fact, we should prohibit or at least discourage it.
The insertion of his penis is his consent to the possibility of a baby.
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.
Men's rights are important, as are all humans rights. But I think as a man or woman we suck it up and sacrifice some of our rights because children are more vulnerable, weaker, and we have a duty to raise our children ourselves.
Do you believe abortion should be legal?
The insertion of his penis is his consent to the possibility of a baby.
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.
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.
Here are very valid counter arguments to "meninism", if any of you can bring yourself to read it. Written by a man.
http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/03/lets-talk-about-mens-rights/
Some points from the article:
"1 ) Women only make up 20% of elected officials and only 5% of CEOs of fortune 500 companies (an historic high!). And women still only make 77 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts – and that’s only for white people!...
2) For years, many men have argued that women are more naturally nurturing than men. They have suggested that women are more suited for the home, whereas men belong in the workplace.
...such thinking has started to alter. Nonetheless, such prejudice leaves a legacy. Is it surprising that after generations of men confining women to the home and relegating children to their mothers that such social presumptions endure?...
... And when in the workplace, they still earn less than men. At the same time, women often remain more responsible for childcare....
3) feminism rejects the notion that gender should be prescriptive. Women can be feminine or masculine, just like men can be feminine or masculine...So, it’s okay for men to be masculine. But they shouldn’t have to be, just as women shouldn’t have to conform to a single identity to be “true women.â€...
...That’s toxic masculinity. Toxic masculinity narrowly (and dangerously) defines “real men†as strong, violent, emotionless, sexually aggressive, and “wolf-like.†It suggests that there is only a finite range of social, political, and sexual attitudes that men can hold.
....As a man, I don’t need meninism or the men’s rights movement. Because feminism is about the equality and celebration of all expressions of gender....Empowering women does not disempower men. As a man, I am not less equal now that women are more equal...."
Humility is the best trait a man can express. That doesn't mean weakness, but strength to be guided towards constructive purpose. Real women who aren't evil bitches will respond to this every time. Who cares what the evil bitches want? You don't want to be under their thumb under any circumstances!
Toxic masculinity narrowly (and dangerously) defines “real men†as strong, violent, emotionless, sexually aggressive, and “wolf-like.â€
All characteristics feminists think women should have and should be able to express.
Because feminism is about the equality and celebration of all expressions of gender...
many men have argued that women are more naturally nurturing than men. They have suggested that women are more suited for the home, whereas men belong in the workplace.
...such thinking has started to alter. Nonetheless, such prejudice leaves a legacy.
Claiming that women on average are not more nurturing is a lie. They should absolutely on average do more child care than men.
If men are as nurturing as women, let's force feminist moms to hire men for nannies. Let's see how they feel about it.
Thought of a great name for a law requiring a man to consent to paternity:
"Affirmative consent"
Added to original post above.
Thought of a great name for a law requiring a man to consent to paternity:
"Affirmative consent"
How about "Yes means yes"?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
"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.
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.
Another great reason to require a license to become a parent.
why not - one more step towards total surveillance + control state
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.
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?
Do you believe abortion should be legal?
legality and morality are two different things. Where does your question fit in with my comment?
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.
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?
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.
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?
Having sex is consent to the possibility of a baby. That's all there is to it.
That's absolute bullshit.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That is where the compromise "between safety, protection and freeedom" enters.
It is no less an arbitrary line than where I'm drawing it.
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.
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.
« First « Previous Comments 64 - 103 of 335 Next » Last » Search these comments
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. In recognition of the biological reality that it is the woman who physically has to have the abortion, if she wants to abort, the man should have to pay the entire financial cost of the abortion.
Married men should be assumed by the fact of marriage to have given their consent to financial support for legitimate biological paternity.
It is not fair that a woman should have the right to entrap a man with one night sex, obligating him to 20 years or more of financial liability, when she has the right to simply opt out of the same situation via abortion or giving up the baby for adoption. Without a man's affirmative consent to paternity, it's rape.
#politics