Should Co-Parents Be Legally Recognized?

Should Co-Parents Be Legally Recognized

I was talking with one of my clients the other day. She told me her 17-year-old son had accidentally gotten a girl pregnant through failed birth control. He made it clear that, as a senior in high school, he was in no position to be a father. He didn’t have the education. He didn’t have the life experience. He didn’t have the money. The girl chose not to terminate the pregnancy and will be carrying the child to term this year. She will be bringing a child into the world against the biological father’s wishes. This is, to be delicate, not the ideal way to start a family. And yet 50% of all children born to Americans under the age of 30 are born out of wedlock

I’ve written about this before and I’m not going to relitigate it here, but instead, use it as a jumping off point for this article by Laurie Shrage in Aeon. Shrage discusses the changing dynamics of parenthood and how we have to make legal adjustments for it.

While I don’t believe that having children out of wedlock is, in general, a wise decision (and have the backing of all of social science on that one), it’s still going to happen frequently. Given that, what should we do as a society to support these parents who lack the legal structure that society accords to married couples?

Offers Schrage:

“When people become parents, they might not be able to anticipate all the ways in which their interests could be interfered with or undermined. Particularly after a break-up, parents often use tactics that they might admit are unfair, and would be incensed if used against them. But when access to their kids and involvement in their lives is at stake, moral consideration for the other parent is not a priority, even for otherwise decent people. Among my friends, and friends of friends, I have seen one parent use a partner’s lack of US citizenship as a bargaining chip to gain access to the children. Another took advantage of the circumstance that her same-gender co-parent had not obtained legal parent status. Yet another elected to move residence far away from the other parent, which made shared arrangements impractical. Many of us know similar stories.”

Make smart choices in love, minimize divorce and out-of-wedlock-children, and only procreate with sane, rational, responsible partners. You may not be able to predict your future, but you can certainly minimize your own risk.

Schrage makes an important point. We always hear about deadbeat dads. No doubt there are many of them and they should be prosecuted according to the law. But let’s not ignore the legal loopholes that women often exploit to hurt the biological father. I may be a coach for women, but my heart bleeds for any father who has his parental rights taken away due to an irreconcilable relationship with his ex.

Continues Shrage: “Because marriage generally does not cover the terms of shared childrearing, public co-parenting contracts would offer a social insurance scheme for both ‘traditional’ and non-traditional families. An official contract would help to safeguard parents’ basic entitlements, such as the right to be involved in the lives of one’s children and to appropriate forms of child support from each co-parent. If and when cooperation among the co-parents breaks down, the existence of an agreement can guide courts or mediators in negotiating new agreements for shared parental responsibility.”

Hey, if half of Americans want to separate parenthood from marriage, it’s their right. But for the good of society, we need to be a little more far-sighted because there are repercussions to both parents and children when alimony/custody battles rage on.

“In short, one’s rights as a parent, and the relationship with one’s children, shouldn’t be contingent on the ups and downs of one’s love life.”

All the more reason to make smart choices in love, minimize divorce and out-of-wedlock-children, and only procreate with sane, rational, responsible partners. You may not be able to predict your future, but you can certainly minimize your own risk.

Your thoughts, below, are greatly appreciated.

Join 10 Million Readers

And the thousands of women I've helped find true love. Sign up for weekly updates for help understanding men.

I hate spam as much as you do, therefore I will never sell, rent, or give away your email address.

Join our conversation (262 Comments).
Click Here To Leave Your Comment Below.

Comments:

  1. 1
    Stacy2

    I’ve been thinking about co-parenting a lot lately. Apparently it is gaining traction. On its face it seems like a pretty healthy thing – the arrangement is solely about the child. There’s no romantic drama between the parents, which is what drives most dysfunctional dynamic around custody. There’s no pre-existing marriage so there’s no alimony and the kid is not a bargaining chip in that game. The kid will also have 2 parents as role models, and should one parent be hit by a proverbial bus, the kid will still have another parent, family – a major plus vs. “going it alone”.  Of course in order for this to work the co-parent should be a totally sane and stable person, otherwise he’s a liability, and a custody agreement should be drawn up and negotiated. It seems like a solid option to have a family when you just don’t seem to find the right guy right now.

  2. 2
    Stacy

    I agree with what you said.

    However, ‘He didn’t have the money. The girl chose not to terminate the pregnancy and will be carrying the child to term this year. She will be bringing a child into the world against the biological father’s wishes’

    That girl has every right to not want to allow herself to go through abortion just as that young boy has the right to request it. Anytime you have sex, you should assume this is a possibility, even at 17. Condoms are effective about 98% of the time when used correctly and for birth control, over 99%. And condoms break only 1 to 3% of the time. So, I tend not to buy it when I hear that the birth control failed. But even if it did, it doesn’t take away the responsibility no matter the age. Just wanted to get that off my chest.

    1. 2.1
      L

      The failure rate for birth control is around 1 in 1000 when used perfectly.  In reality it is higher.  Even then, with millions of women on birth control it fails and it is really presumptuous and disrespectful to be doubtful when you hear it fails.  It does fail.  It happens.  Sorry you don’t buy it but basic statistics indicate that someone had to be in the percentage of women where birth control failed.

      1. 2.1.1
        Katie

        really presumptuous and disrespectful to be doubtful when you hear it fails.

        No. It’ NOT disrespectful to be doubtful. It may be disrespectful to give vocalize your doubt if you don’t know the person well. But it is NOT disrespectful to doubt.

        It is more likely that the woman made a mistake in her usage of it than it is that it failed when being used perfectly.

      2. 2.1.2
        Stacy

        @L

        If my opinion that I am skeptical whenever people say that birth control has failed when they get into certain situations means I am disrespectful, then I don’t mind owning that.

        And you seemed to skip the part of my post that states that EVEN if it fails (so I do believe it fails at times), that for not relieve anyone of his or her responsibility if it came down to a prrgnancy, etc.

        1. Stacy

          ‘Does not relieve’

          ‘pregnancy’

          I would like to add that it’s not difficult to use birth control correctly.One would hope that someone understands this if they’re at the point when they are engaging in sexual acts voluntarily.

  3. 3
    Jeremy

    I think that a co-parenting agreement might be about as valuable as a pre-nup.  Which is to say that its utility would be determined by 1) the default legalities if no agreement was present, and 2) the legalities of what it is allowed to stipulate.

     

    With a pre-nup, for example, if no agreement was in place, the legal default is alimony and child support payments from the higher income spouse to the lower.  As long as that is the default, individuals who want the security of those payments will simply decline to sign the agreement.  In the same way, as long as the default legalities enforce rights for the mother, mothers who want those rights would not sign an agreement and would revert to the default.

     

    With a pre-nup, the couple might agree that no alimony should be awarded.  But the law does not allow such an agreement to stand up in court, even if it was agreed upon.  So as long as the default legalities don’t recognize agreements as binding, the document is meaningless.  A co-parenting agreement would similarly be meaningless if the laws did not make the agreement binding.

     

    I guess the TL;DR version is that as long as the default law gives certain people rights over other people, the people with rights will not willingly give up those rights nor recognize the rights of others.  Just ask any person who agrees that in the case of the OP, she should have the right to bear the child against the father’s wishes but he should not have the right to opt out financially.

  4. 4
    Stacy2

    On the topic of legal frameworks – please let’s not do this!! Don’t we have the state meddling in people’s private lives enough already? Can’t I even have a kid with someone without the state imposing some “one size fit all” legal framework on me? This is what private contracts are for. Ridiculous.

    1. 4.1
      Evan Marc Katz

      Sorry, legally protecting people from going bankrupt or losing their kids is not “state meddling.” Like protections against climate change, the desire to cover more people with health insurance and minimum wage laws, it’s designed to help people most likely to get screwed by greed and malice, both individual, corporate and societal.

      1. 4.1.1
        Stacy2

        Co-parenting is an act of two consenting adults who both actively participate in the act of conceiving a child. What “protections” are we even talking about here?? Protections from what exactly? This is absurd. As an adult, i am perfectly capable negotiating the rules of engagement with another person, and I don’t need the state to write those rules for me. They’ve already written them for legal marriage and we all know how “well” that has turned out. Not!

        There already are custody laws on the books that will be directly applicable, there’s just simply no need to reinvent the wheel and create more legal complexities. It only feeds the lawyers.

        1. Chance

          In other words, you want the state to meddle when it suits you.

        2. Toby

          I hope you’re never in a situation in which you have to depend upon the custody and family laws that you think are so clearly written. Family court is a joke, and a judge’s rulings are as likely to be based on whether you’re wearing his or her favorite color that day as anything else. The lawyers are making bank on this now; having an assumed coparenting status applicable from the start that is independent from marital status and/or divorce proceedings is in a child’s best interest and will help prevent the enormous number of parents being alienated from their children’s lives.

          And, no, I’m not a father (though I bet some of you were assuming so). I’m a mother whose children were stolen from her through manipulation of the family court system by my ex, to whom I was never married. The court mediator confided in me that she believed he had sociopathic tendencies in his revenge fantasies toward me. He has bankrupted me, all because of issues that could have been avoided with an agreement such as the one you mention.

          Maybe people assume that everyone is as decent or as logical (or has as much money) as they do. What about those who don’t? What about the children of those who don’t?

          (For the record, I’m a university professor and so is my ex. But, please, feel free to start the ad hominem attacks. As a noncustodial mother, I’m quite used to them by now.)

      2. 4.1.2
        Persephone

         Thank you for saying that, Evan. I would also like to say that children deserve to be protected. This isn’t meddling with parents. This is protecting children. Parents have protections under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. However, the courts have determined over and over again that the “best interest of the child,” which is a legal term of Art, outweighs the 14th Amendment rights.
         I also have a question to ask. Am I in some kind of alternate universe? Granted, I’m licensed to practice family law only in my state, but since when does it matter whether or not parents are married in order for them to be co-parenting? All the father needs to do is to be legally declared the father period sometimes that’s no small feat. If they don’t sign the document while they’re at the hospital, the day of the child’s birth, then they often times have to go to court and have an order stating that they are the legal father.

    2. 4.2
      Chance

      How else would the rights and obligations of parents be enforced, then?  It sounds like you don’t think that fathers should be required to pay child support.  Is that correct?

      1. 4.2.1
        Stacy2

        There’re already laws to that effect in each state. You can establish parental rights, assert them, give them up, etc. in court within the existing legal framework. There’s “known donor” arrangement for those men who want to openly father a child but want no financial responsibility. Come on now. What more do we need?

        1. Chance

          We need to ensure that mothers and fathers have equal reproductive and parental rights, which unfortunately, requires additional legislation.  It doesn’t sound like you’re interested in that, though.

      2. 4.2.2
        Stacy2

        @Chance:

        “equal reproductive rights?” Huh?

        I am sorry to be a bearer of bad news but you can not legislate yourself a uterus. Women can give birth and men can’t, it is biological reality and there’s nothing equal about it. If you want equal reproductive rights, you don’t need new laws, you need a new planet.

        Yes, fathers should be required to pay child support as should be mothers. When you bring a child into this world please don’t make it other people’s responsibility.

        And for those “accidental” fathers- tough break. I feel bad for them, i do, but not ready to pick up their slack through my taxes, sorry. I do not think they need any special protections. This is one of the many life risks they simply need to deal with. You simply can’t demand that society and the laws shield you from every possible risk and any shred of personal responsibility in life. Especially, one such as this that is completely within your control to avoid (don’t have sex out of wedlock or until you ready to be a dad or have a vasectomy etc.). Life is full of risks and consequences, intended and unintended. Nobody is a special snowflake, deal with it…

        1. Stacy

          I have to agree with Stacy2 on this particular post.

        2. Chance

          “And for those “accidental” fathers- tough break. I feel bad for them, i do, but not ready to pick up their slack through my taxes, sorry.”

           

          If you don’t like the idea of picking up another person’s slack through your taxes, then your anger should be directed at single mothers.  They are the primary drain on society in this regard.

        3. KK

          “If you don’t like the idea of picking up another person’s slack through your taxes, then your anger should be directed at single mothers.  They are the primary drain on society in this regard”.

          Interesting… so all these single mothers are impregnating themselves? I never realized females could be asexual.

          What you’re referring to, Chance, are people living in poverty that choose to continue to procreate. These men that think they’re manly because of how many “baby mamas” they have are just as much to blame as the women that allow this nonsense.

        4. Tron Swanson

          We already ignore biological reality to enforce equality–but, thus far, it’s been to help women. I think that’s a good thing, because I’m a big believer in equality. Now, though, we need to help men in the same way.

          Let’s be clear:

          The “if he didn’t want to deal with this possibility, he shouldn’t have had sex” argument also applies to women. Except women have a way out–abortion–while men don’t. I’m personally a believer in the idea of financial abortion. Without that, women have a right that men don’t–namely, a legal way of avoiding the consequences of pregnancy. And “separate but equal” has never gone well in America…

        5. Stacy2

          Except women have a way out–abortion–while men don’t.

          1. For many women this is NOT a way out, for religious and/or medical reasons

          2. The consequences for the other party should not be relevant to your decision making as a rational adult. As a rational person, you should be concerned with consequences for yourself, and if you are not comfortable with the risks you should not participate in the activity. Period, full stop. This applies to absolutely everything and any situation in life. Two people rob a bank. One is a juvenile another one is you. The juvie gets a slap on the wrist and walks with a clean record at 18. You get 10 years. You did the deed together. You faced different risks. Different consequences for your partner do not absolve you from being responsible for your actions and your own risks. It is weird that this concept is not understood.

          But you know what, I think that it does. I think most men are completely comfortable applying it to any other situation in life, except for sex. Because you feel entitled to sex with women and you feel you’re entitled to it with no consequences. This is what is wrong with men (the ones who have this position anyway).

        6. Chance

          Stacy2, even if the woman can’t have an abortion, she is free to put the child up for adoption.  The man still has no choice in the matter.

    3. 4.3
      Robert

      No–depending on your state, there will be certain laws that apply irregardless of what you agree to–which must be stipulated to in a courtroom and signed off on by a judge.

      If not married, the law is basic–you can’t have any alimony no matter how much he makes and he has to pay a statutory minimum amount based upon is income. If he is wealthy and has unearned income he will be ordered to pay more–much more, as the courts allow that the child is entitled to the life it would live if it lived with whichever parent made/has the most money. Lastly, the father had no legal rights at all until a court grants them by court order.

      None of this arguable. The laws are pretty much he same all through the country.

  5. 5
    KK

    The laws we currently have in place are to protect children. It isn’t about men or women or which parent should have more / less rights. The problem is that those laws don’t take into account sometimes complex issues.

    Should a 17 year old boy be forced to be on the hook financially for a child he didn’t want for the next 18 years? Currently, the law says yes. So, what if the law changed and someone could opt out of child support? Well… good luck coming up with acceptable criteria that will appease everyone. Are we going to allow people to change their minds? Are we going to impose some sort of age limit? If you’re under 18 when the child is conceived then you’re not legally responsible? Are men going to have the right to force a woman to give birth to a child she wants to abort? It’s his child, too. It’s her body. These issues need a lot of debate and discussion with careful thought and foresight before new laws can be implemented.

    1. 5.1
      Stacy2

      I would add to that – what should be a responsibility of a guy who impregnates a woman against her wish (not even talking about a rape)? There’re nut jobs like that out there. Should she be responsible for child support? If she has an abortion that leaves her sick/infertile/dead is he then responsible for inflicting bodily damage or, even manslaughter?

      I just don’t understand why this particular risk is so special. You could go skiing and have an accident that leaves you paralyzed (through no fault of your own). You can go for a drive and be hit by a drunk driver. You can go out at night and be mugged. You can have sex and become a parent. Or contract an STD. One of many risks in life. Why should there be any special protections for anybody with respect to this specific thing?

      1. 5.1.1
        KK

        “I would add to that – what should be a responsibility of a guy who impregnates a woman against her wish (not even talking about a rape)? There’re nut jobs like that out there. Should she be responsible for child support”?

        If she has the child and allows him to be the custodial parent? Yes, she would be responsible for child support. This isn’t any different than the nut job women that intentionally get pregnant against the man’s wishes. According to our current laws, she would be financially responsible.

        “If she has an abortion that leaves her sick/infertile/dead is he then responsible for inflicting bodily damage or, even manslaughter”?

        No. The doctor would be held responsible IF someone pursued legal action.

         

        1. Stacy2

          If she has the child and allows him to be the custodial parent? Yes, she would be responsible for child support. This isn’t any different than the nut job women that intentionally get pregnant against the man’s wishes

          Precisely. But if absolve the “accidental father” from the responsibility, then we should also absolve the “accidental mother”, under this equal reproductive rights idea. In which case, we will end up having 2 parents pointing at each other, he said/she said situation, each can claim the other tricked him/her, and how are we supposed to adjudicate this ridiculous situation? This is exactly why the law is written as it is.

        2. KK

          “This is exactly why the law is written as it is”.

          That’s riiiiight…. and that’s why I asked Chance what he proposes. He’ll either ignore my question or come up with something ridiculous that only benefits (potential) fathers without regard for the (potential) mothers or child(ren).

        3. Chance

          Stacy2,

           

          “But if absolve the “accidental father” from the responsibility, then we should also absolve the “accidental mother”, under this equal reproductive rights idea.”

           

          Women are absolved from responsibility, and men are not.  Women can unilaterally decide to abort the child or put it up for adoption.

      2. 5.1.2
        Chance

        It sounds like you’re saying that women shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion if the father wants the child.  After all, she knew the risks, right?

        1. Stacy2

          Reading comprehension much? No, what I am saying that there’s an argument to be made, that if a guy impregnates woman against her wish, and that pregnancy ultimately causes her death (can happen in many ways), than he should be responsible for the wrongful death, criminally and civilly. Why – because “if not for” his actions, she would be alive. If this was my area of law I’d be dying to try this argument.

        2. Jeremy

          But if you did die trying out this argument, would it be the fault of the other lawyer arguing with you?  Sorry, couldn’t resist…

        3. Chance

          Stacy2, I ignored your musing about a woman getting raped because it’s a straw man argument.  Of course, a woman who has been raped should be allowed to abort the child.  I’m referring to what you said here:

           

          “I just don’t understand why this particular risk is so special. You could go skiing and have an accident that leaves you paralyzed (through no fault of your own). You can go for a drive and be hit by a drunk driver. You can go out at night and be mugged. You can have sex and become a parent. Or contract an STD. One of many risks in life. Why should there be any special protections for anybody with respect to this specific thing?”

           

          It sounds like what you’re saying is that, in the event of an accidental pregnancy that was the result of consensual sex (jesus, can’t believe that I have to add this qualifier), the woman shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion if the man wants the child.  I mean, she understood the risks, right?  Surely, you don’t think people are responsible for assuming the risks of their choices  in every other aspect of life with the exception of this one aspect, no?  I mean, that would be silly.

  6. 6
    KK

    Chance said, “We need to ensure that mothers and fathers have equal reproductive and parental rights, which unfortunately, requires additional legislation”.

    Sounds nice. What additional legislation do you propose would be fair to the child, the mother, and the father?

    1. 6.1
      Robert

      How about if she claims he’s the father and he is, he has automatic legal rights and, baring mental deficiencies in both cases, has 50/50 custodial rights as well. In return, he is financially liable as well.

      Right now, the only rights an unwed father has is to lay child support or go to jail.

  7. 7
    Angela

    To Chance: single mothers area drain on society?!?! Lol. I have a 13 year  old son that I got pregnant with accidentally. His father was excited to be a ‘dad’ whatever some people think that means. (I personally believe it means being present in all ways possible the way I feel being a mother means). I carried my child and had him and his dad alas decided after a short time he didn’t want to have a child and assist in supporting him. So therefore I do it myself. I graduate from college as a physical therapist and make great money. So despite the fact that it’s wrong that this man that wanted the child has stepped out, I take full responsibility for this child and yes am a single mother. Please explain to me how I am draining society!!!!?????!!!

  8. 8
    L

    I tend to think that we all know how babies are made and men and women are equally responsible. Given that the girl who got pregnant had to bear the child – and realistically will bear the brunt of the child rearing – then yes, she gets the ultimate say in what happens to her body.  With sex comes responsibility.  Whenever you have sex with someone there is a risk of unplanned pregnancy.  I am on birth control and I think I won’t get pregnant because of that but there are no guarantees when you are sexually active.

    As for fatherhood, the standard is best interest of the child.  Whether 50/50 parenting is in the best interest of the child depends.  I have an 80/20 arrangement and that works for my family.  As for the 17 year old future dad?  The kid is conceived and it is best for the kid for the teen dad to be in his or her life.

  9. 9
    Jeremy

    This issue is too emotionally fraught to be discussed rationally.  The biases that people have on this topic are reinforced by fears.  Women see a world that is biologically unfair to them – a world where they have to bear the brunt of pregnancy and child-rearing, while watching men escape the majority of that burden.  Their primal fear is being abandoned by a man to raise a child on their own.  So they believe that the least a man can do is support the child financially, and that doing so is getting off easily.  When considering what the world would look like if the law was changed, most women envision a dystopia where men run around Scott-free while women toil endlessly, and it is un-fair.

     

    Men see a world that is unfair to them – a world where women claim “my body, my choice” but for men the rule is “my body, not my choice.”  After all, the work done to support a child financially is done with the body.  A world where consent to sex = consent to parenthood for men, but not for women.  A world that claims that what matters is the best interest of the child…..when compared to the best interest of the father but not the mother.  After all, being aborted is not in the best interest of the child.  Being given up for safe-haven is not necessarily in the best interest of the child, nor is being given up for adoption necessarily.  These options were given to women because society believed that a mistaken pregnancy should not ruin the life of a young woman, and that society should bear the burden if she can not.  Society never extended that grace to men because society believed that men are responsible for their own mistakes.  Men need not picture the dystopian world where women’s rights are protected over their own – they live in it.

     

    I do not hope to convince anyone who believes that men should be obligated to support women’s decisions to bear children — I see both sides and I’m honestly not sure what I support.  The only thing I hope to do is to point out where our biases are coming from – from availability, from primal fear, and from perceptions of unfairness that are rooted in our own experiences and our inability to perspective-take.  Whichever side of this debate we fall on, we must acknowledge that the topic is not simply “we do what is in the best interest of the child.”

    1. 9.1
      Marika

      Jeremy 

      Your wife is one lucky gal😊

      You’re spot on. As with so many issues on this blog – it’s true that there is no rational discussion or possibility of coming to a consensus. It’s too fraught with emotion & opposing viewpoints (all of which have merit). I cringe when someone says something heartless, whether about single mothers, fathers with no rights or access to their kids, babies having babies…if we were ever to walk a mile in their shoes…

    2. 9.2
      Stacy2

      These options were given to women because society believed that a mistaken pregnancy should not ruin the life of a young woman,

      No, no just no. Please just stop. This is not why these options are “given”. These options are created not for women but for the innocent babies. They may not be the best option ever for the baby, but they often are the best option that’s available. They are there to assure that a child that was brought to this world by parents who are unable or unwilling to support the baby does not get left in the woods to die, but is taken care of. This whole issue is not about men vs. women. Its is 100% about the interest of the child. Something that, apparently, some men with the “me-me-me oh this is so unfair to me” mentality are unable to comprehend. It’s not about you, dudes. It’s about the kid. Grow up.

    3. 9.4
      Stacy2

      @ Jeremy

      this will probably be my last comment on this as this issue is completely clear in my mind, but I wanted to point out that nothing about it is emotion as you’re trying to insinuate. It is actually purely logical. Every woman, myself included, who commented on this topic, has presented valid and consistent logical arguments, while men presented emotional “its not faaair!!!” [crybaby] “arguments”. This topic was discussed on this blog before (link at the bottom of the page) and the same arguments were presented there. One of the commenters put it rather eloquently and it’s worth quoting her.
      I completely disagree with this premise on moral and ethical grounds. It is also not legally supportable. If a man has sex with a woman of child bearing age, unless she has no ovaries or no uterus, he takes the risk that he will father a child. Women take this exact same risk. No birth control is fail-safe. 
      Now the question arises regarding who should bear financial responsibility for a child. Should the mother bear 100% responsibility? What if she didn’t intend to become pregnant in the first place either? Are we going to require the courts to make a factual detemination regarding which of the parents wanted the child less and that parent is then off the hook for financial support? Or is this premise only applicable to fathers? If the father presents evidence that he didn’t intend to impregnate the mother, he is granted a waiver of paying support? What is the level of proof required? More probable than not? Clearm, cogent and convinving evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt? What is admissible as evidence? Circumstantial evidence? Testimony only by the putative father? Should a jury be allowed to make this determination? What if the father initially wanted the child but later changed his mind? What about the child, should his or her interests be taken into account at all?
      The unworkability of such a system should be self-evident. This is why the legal standard for such determination is “the best interests of the child” not the “best interests of the parent.” It’s about what is FAIR TO THE CHILD! If a man has sex, he takes the risk that he will father a child. You volunteer to have sex, you are also volunteering to cause a woman to be impregnated. Period. That premise does hold up logically. The consequences of birthing a child are that BOTH parents are equally legally responsbile for the child.
      Same questions and issues that I brought up here. No emotions, Jeremy. Just logic. This would never work legally. If you disagree, please outline how you think it could work. What do you propose? KK asked that question and, not surprisingly got no response. It’s because men understand that there’s no other way, but some just want to whine.

      Here’s some shocking thing  – the main purpose of vaginal sex is (biologically) to conceive babies. It’s not recreation, fun or pleasure. So by having it, you implicitly consent to the possibility of becoming a parent. Perhaps, we should really drive this point home in sex ed classes.

      1. 9.4.1
        Chance

        Stacy2,

         

        The person you quoted presented an argument that is based on a false premise, which is that women are taking a risk of having to give birth to, and rear, and child in the event of an unwanted pregnancy.  Women have options available to them, pre-birth and post-birth, to relieve themselves of having and/or rearing the child.  The rest of her comment amounts to little more than pettifoggery.

         

        There are two fair solutions to the problem depending on your preference.  When there is an unwanted pregnancy, 1.) any parent who doesn’t want to raise the child can be relieved of the legal responsibility, or 2.) both parents are legally responsible for supporting the child in the event that one of the parents wants to raise the child.  The second option is already the legal reality from the standpoint of the mother wanting to raise the child.  However, to be fair, if a father wants to raise the child and the mother does not, then the mother would not be allowed to abort the child (in this particular case) and she must be responsible for supporting the child.  I cannot see how anyone could interpret either of these options as being unfair between a man and a woman.  As it relates to what is best for the child, it is debatable whether or not option 1 is better for the child in relation to the current legal state of affairs, but I cannot see how anyone could say that option #2 is worse for the child when compared to the current state.

         

        On another note, in situations where a child is born out of wedlock, both the mother and father should have equal access to both physical and legal custody of the child, and the man should not have to legally pursue physical custody.  It shouldn’t be a woman’s place to “allow” him to have equal physical custody of the child.

        1. Stacy2

          Clearly, making a woman carry a child to term would be a non-starter. Its her body. It’s not yours. Biological reality is a bitch.

          Any parent who doesn’t want to raise the child can be relieved of the legal responsibility, 

          Non-starter. Why should tax-payers pick up the tab? Try again.

          both parents are legally responsible for supporting the child in the event that one of the parents wants to raise the child.

          This is what we already have.

          both the mother and father should have equal access to both physical and legal custody of the child, and the man should not have to legally pursue physical custody.

          If they don’t live together some legal procedure is absolutely necessary for purely logistical reasons. However people negotiate custody agreements outside of court every day, so not clear what your gripe with the system here is…

          So, as I said, you’ve got nothing. No realistic proposals whatsoever.

           

        2. KK

          “On another note, in situations where a child is born out of wedlock, both the mother and father should have equal access to both physical and legal custody of the child…”

          They do.

          “…and the man should not have to legally pursue physical custody.  It shouldn’t be a woman’s place to “allow” him to have equal physical custody of the child”.

          It isn’t a woman’s place to “allow” physical custody of the child and if she denies access to the child, the only option is to pursue custody / visitation legally to enforce the rights he already has. The mother can’t just willy nilly decide to deny access to the child the way you’re trying to make it sound. She can be charged with being in contempt of court and fined or jailed or both.

        3. Chance

          Stacy2,

           

          “Clearly, making a woman carry a child to term would be a non-starter. Its her body. It’s not yours.”

           

          I find it interesting that you would have this stance since you’ve been pretty consistent in your view that people should be responsible for their own actions and accept the risks associated with their choices (which I happen to agree with, btw).  Why are pregnant women an exception to this rule?  I am largely pro-choice, but I’ve always been fascinated how this is one subject that can never seemingly be questioned as if it is some sort of unconditional right that should be granted to women regardless of the circumstances.  Hardly anything in life should work that way, and this isn’t just about the mother because other people’s lives are affected by this decision.  So, Stacy2, why is everyone else in the world responsible for accepting the risks associated with their actions with the exception of pregnant women?

           

           

          “Non-starter. Why should tax-payers pick up the tab? Try again.”

           

          LOL just because you say something is a non-starter doesn’t make it so.  We are already picking up the tab for a lot of single mothers out there who made the unilateral decision to be a single mother, and bring a child into sub-optimal conditions.  Are you saying that it’s okay to pick up the tab in this instance?

           

          In response to my comment:  “both parents are legally responsible for supporting the child in the event that one of the parents wants to raise the child.”, you stated:  “This is what we already have.”

           

          That isn’t correct.  Women can relieve themselves of this responsibility, while men cannot.  Why do you keep refusing to acknowledge that?

        4. KK

          This argument is getting really stupid. When a woman has a child, she can petition the courts for child support from the father. He will be forced to pay her 20% of his monthly paycheck. And in cases where he has a high income (most states) there’s a cap on this amount. This hardly qualifies as robbery. I can guarantee you that most of these single moms (divorced or not) are spending much more than 20% of their monthly income raising their child in addition to receiving the father’s paltry 20%. So the argument that women don’t face consequences for unplanned pregnancy is completely inaccurate. Most of these moms have custody 26 or 27 days a month compared with dad’s 4 days.

        5. Stacy2

          So, Stacy2, why is everyone else in the world responsible for accepting the risks associated with their actions with the exception of pregnant women?

          Are you for real? She is responsible. She’s the one who’s freaking pregnant and about to give birth, after which time she’s going to be responsible for childcare and at least half of  the expenses. All that’s asked of the daddy is to chime in financially to a limited amount and he’s crying like a bitch? Yeah, let’s talk about who’s responsible..

          We are already picking up the tab for a lot of single mothers out there who made the unilateral decision..

          We are because the fathers of those kids are poor and have nothing to contribute. Are you saying we need to subsidize the children of those who are well-off too, but decided “they didn’t want them”? I don’t think so. This is a poverty issue, not a gender issue.

          Women can relieve themselves of this responsibility, while men cannot.  Why do you keep refusing to acknowledge that?

          Because it is factually not true. A woman can not give up a kid without the biological father’s consent. The father can get custody and make her pay child support. And I do not consider abortion an “option” for women in general, sorry. You go let them scrub out your organs if you’re so inclined, and don’t pretend it’s an easy “option” for everybody.

        6. Chance

          Stacy2,

           

          “Are you for real? She is responsible. She’s the one who’s freaking pregnant and about to give birth, after which time she’s going to be responsible for childcare and at least half of  the expenses.”

           

          Wait… you were just saying that the woman shouldn’t be held responsible by being forced to carry the child to term if the father wanted the child.  That was what this conversation was about.  Either way, again:  the woman is free to abort, free to give the child up for adoption (even without consent from father after a specified amount of time), or keep the child and force the father to pay for it.

           

           

          “We are because the fathers of those kids are poor and have nothing to contribute.”

           

          That’s not accurate.  Since 100% control is placed into the hands of the mother, it is the mothers who are unilaterally choosing to have (and keep) those children when she had other options.  As a result, it places an undue burden on society.

           

          “Because it is factually not true.”

           

          It is true, actually.  Maybe it isn’t true according to alternative facts.  Dad wants child:  she can abort.  Dad doesn’t want child:  non-issue she can put it up for adoption, or abort.

        7. Evan Marc Katz

          Don’t bother, Chance. There’s no getting through.

        8. Chance

          I know, but it’s entertainment for me.  It’s fascinating how some people have the ability to look reality straight in the eye and deny it.  (kind of like the climate change deniers).

        9. SparklingEmerald

          Somewhere in this string of elipses . . . E the O said . . .

          I think the problem with the “just friends” goes a bit deeper, as in the woman calls and hangs out with the guy friend, goes to him for advice about other guys she likes, but knows the guy friend is really into her. She doesn’t end the friendship because she’s getting something out of it. Yes, that’s selfish.

          In this case, if the woman is initiating these hang outs and phone calls yes.  But more often, it is the man who continues to orbit, call, ask to hang out, says he is OK with being friends, etc.

          If the woman KNOWS a man is smitten with her, tells him they are just friends, and then proceeds to ask him to give her rides to the airport, feed her cat while she is away, turns to him for advice for her car, boyfriend, etc.,  invites him over to watch TV with her, while she sits in a separate chair seductively in her short-shorts, then yes, she is using him for validation.  However, even though she is being thoughtless and careless with his feelings, HE is the one who needs to exit the friend zone if it is that painful.

          However, if the girl tells a guy she doesn’t think they are a match, and he says he would still like to be friends, and then proceeds to call and ask her to hang out on a regular basis and constantly offers to do favors for her, and pushes the issue after she says “No thanks” to his offers, then HE is 100% responsible.  In fact, this “close friendship” might be something very awkward for HER, as he is the one pushing it.  It’s hard enough for a woman to tell a man she isn’t interested in him romantically, so she will usually try to soft peddle it by accepting his “offer” of friendship, thinking he will just fade away.  If he starts calling and asking to hang out constantly, it’s gets super awkward to say, “I don’t even want a friendship with you”.  I think the time to do that is when he starts pushing to do her a favor and she repeatedly says no.  Something along the lines of  “This friendship isn’t working out for me.  I’ve told you three times that I don’t need a ride home from campus, as I live two block here from here, then you offered to walk me home.  Then I told you I had a lot on my mind and needed the time alone to walk it off, then you said “I have pretty big shoulders, do you want to talk about it ?” And I said “No, that’s OK, I just want to walk home by myself”, and you continued to push it . . .”  I think it’s best for both of us to not be friends.    I think in a way, THAT converstation would be harder than telling a guy you aren’t interested romantically.

           

        10. Emily, the original

          Sparkling Emerald,

          Of course I think that everyone is responsible for his/her own choices. That being said, I don’t think it really matters who’s pushing for the friendship in a male/female interaction. If you, as a woman, know a man wants to be sexual/romantic and you don’t want that from him (despite a close friendship), you should tell him to leave you alone. It’s the same for a man who repeatedly hooks up with a woman he knows has a real thing for him. In both situations, the more-interested party is being used. There is such a thing as compassion and sexual responsibility.

      2. 9.4.2
        Jeremy

        Stacy, to be clear, when I wrote that the issue is fraught with emotion, I was referring to both sexes, not just women.  The implication was not that men were being logical and women emotional, but that both were guilty of only seeing the facts they wanted to see and building an argument of “fairness” out of them.

         

        The notion that adoption and safe haven were instituted for the benefit of the child is one that I disagree with.  Children were kept in abysmal conditions historically in orphanages and often did not live happy lives.  And if you believe that the argument is that women would have abandoned the infants to die without these laws (and are better off alive than dead) then you can not justify abortion.  These laws were instituted by a patriarchal society that was protective of young women.  This is the reason why women are still allowed to give up a child for adoption without offering the father an option (or even indicating the name of the father) and are not required to contribute to the financial upkeep of that child once given up, while men are denied the option of giving up the child depending on the choice of the mother.

         

        The argument you quoted is equally blind.  The notion of having courts decide who wanted the child less is a straw man argument.  A woman who finds herself pregnant and does not want to bear the child has options to terminate the pregnancy (with pills in the early stage, and surgically in the later stages),  and options to give up the child once birthed.  We do not tell her that having vaginal sex is the way babies are made, and when she decided to have sex she de-facto consented to parenthood, as you argue we should tell men.  If you are going to use an argument for men, you MUST apply it to women too.

         

        Now, your very valid question (and KK’s) – so if we admit that the current situation is unfair, what do we PROPOSE?  I did not answer because I don’t have a great solution.  Do we establish that the default is no responsibility for men unless consented or married?  That might well lead to a world that is more unfair to women compared to the current unfairness to men.  Should the teenage boy in the OP’s case be absolved of responsibility because the choice to bear the child to term was one he did not support?………maybe.  Not sure.  I see both sides.  But to say that the issue is clear and logical and fair….no, Stacy, I don’t think so.  It might just be the lesser of evils.

        1. Stacy2

          @ Jeremy:

          This is the reason why women are still allowed to give up a child for adoption without offering the father an option (or even indicating the name of the father) and are not required to contribute to the financial upkeep of that child once given up

          I firmly believe that you are misinformed on this issue. Exactly where is this the case? A biological father can absolutely stop an adoption, petition to establish paternity and to assert his rights.

          A woman who finds herself pregnant and does not want to bear the child has options to terminate the pregnancy (with pills in the early stage, and surgically in the later stages)

          This is your main logical fallacy. As a wrote below, a woman can not wish away her pregnancy. Abortions are dangerous, and especially those of the first pregnancy, not to mention ethically questionable. Just because some women view it as an option, doesn’t mean that it is an option for any and every woman out there.

           We do not tell her that having vaginal sex is the way babies are made, and when she decided to have sex she de-facto consented to parenthood, as you argue we should tell men.

          No, we tell that to both. And both are responsible financially, and the woman is also responsible physically. No other way.

          I did not answer because I don’t have a great solution.

          Exactly.

          But to say that the issue is clear and logical and fair….no, Stacy, I don’t think so.

          “Fair” is the word that seriously needs to be banished from existence. Nothing in life is fair. The law is not about what’s fair, it’s about what’s just, and about what leads to be best possible outcome for everyone involved. In this case everyone involved is also the child and the rest of the society that does not want to socialize childcare for children of men who claim they “didn’t want them”. That is one thing that surely is not going to happen, and other tax paying men will be the first ones to see to it.

           

           

        2. GoWiththeFlow

          Jeremy,

          Most of your arguments and reasoning are sound. . . except for these statements:

          “These laws were instituted by a patriarchal society that was protective of young women.”

          Most women can tell you that laws that are said to be for our “protection” are really about restricting us. It’s just prettied up with the whole protection schtick.

          The number one assumption that underlies the “mothers are free to choose abortion, so fathers should be able to choose to terminate parental rights” theory is that abortion is both easy for women to access physically and financially in the U.S.  Except it’s not.  One reason is the number of laws that states pass to “protect” women by restricting their ability to get an abortion.  But it’s about preventing abortions, not about protecting women.

          For example, in some states women have to wait 48 hours from the time they have an initial appointment with an abortion provider before having the procedure because the woman obviously hasn’t spent any time at all doing research, consulting her own OB/GYN or primary care doc, nor discussed it with her husband/boyfriend, family members or friends.  She has to be protected from her own faulty decision making processes.

          Another restriction is that in the case of a medical abortion with RU486, the woman must be present at the clinic and the doc has to physically hand her the pills to take, because women have to be “protected” from a drug that the FDA has determined (and that there is a lot of clinical data in support of) the fact that it is safe for her to take it in the comfort of her own home.  Because again, women need to be protected from scientific and medical facts.

          “This is the reason why women are still allowed to give up a child for adoption without offering the father an option (or even indicating the name of the father). . .”

          Where does this belief come from?  It doesn’t jive with the reality of adoption in this country.  For my son’s adoption, I had to pay an attorney an extra $2500 to re-do the notification of and court filing to terminate his birth father’s parental rights because the TPR form the birthfather signed for the adoption agency was rejected by the judge.  So b-dad signed a second one, eight months after he signed the first one.

          In my journey through the adoption world, I became friends with other adoptive families and have two sets of close friends, married couples, who had prospective adoptions fall through when the birthfathers decided to parent.  All 3 adoption agencies I worked with would not take on a birth mother who refused to disclose who the birthfather is.  For my daughter’s adoption, more than one man was served.  All willingly signed away parental rights.

          In the event that a woman lies about who the father of her child is, I, and I suspect the huge majority of people, would have no problem at all charging her with a crime.  It’s identity theft, and both the father and the child are the victims in such a case.  In the U.S. the whole adoption process and specifically protection of birthfather’s rights would be strengthened if we had a national system, and not a patchwork of 50 different sets of laws. (Can TPR forms be signed at any time, or not until 72 hours after birth?) Crossing state lines wouldn’t lead to a new set of rules of how to proceed.

          As for the question of what, if anything, needs to change, and for what that change should look like, there are three things to consider:

          1) The underlying assumption (mentioned above)that abortion is easily accessible and affordable for women.  In the U.S. this isn’t so.  (I don’t know what the situation is like in Canada, Jeremy.)

          Our new President said during the campaign that he would appoint federal SCOTUS judges that would overturn Roe vs. Wade (that would allow individual states to further restrict or outlaw abortion) and that women who have abortions should be punished.  Men overall, and 63% of white men voted for this.  So I hope all of the U.S. men who think fathers should be able to terminate their parental rights to an unwanted child because abortion, are actively working to keep abortion legal, accessible, and affordable.  Because a majority of men routinely support the political party that wants to outlaw it, and most of the time they don’t seem to even notice or care about it.

          2)  The assumption that a woman aborting a pregnancy is logically and morally the same as a man terminating his parental rights to an unwanted child.

          Abortion is a definitive end.  A child who is born is an ongoing evolving life that doesn’t end until their death.  That child will have inherited characteristics, physical, intellectual, and personality wise from the father that will impact the world around him or her.

          A man may terminate his rights, but that won’t prevent that kid from popping up in his life.  Maybe it’s to strictly get medical/genetic info.  Maybe it’s because they are looking for a part of themselves.  Maybe they wish for a relationship.  What will the birthdad think and feel years down the road?  What if he is parenting “wanted” kids.  How does he reconcile the unwanted and wanted thing?  Does he unexpectedly grieve, even years later, like birth moms do for children they have placed for adoption?  What if the wanted children find out about their unwanted half-sibling?  Will that affect their relationship with dad?

          It seems that a lot of the arguments being put in favor of this are naively over-logical.  They assume that the break is as final as a death.  It’s not.  The arguments assume there won’t be emotions involved, it’s just about the cash and who pays and who doesn’t.  The biggest and most perpetual problems a man may have with an unwanted child may have nothing to do with money and everything to do with emotions.

          3)  The last assumption seems to be that a one-size fits all solution that is agreeable to a majority of citizens–what is needed to change laws–can be had.  Except see numbers 1 & 2 above.  There is no consensus there.

          The reason this is such a mess is that our current laws are based on a one-size-fits-all assumption:  That the legal father of a woman’s child is her husband.  Except nowadays that doesn’t work any more.  I think there would be widespread agreement that in this day and age of DNA testing and childbearing without marriage, that parental rights should be split evenly between mother and father regardless of marital status.  Both have equal access and custody of the child and both are entitled to share in decision making for the child.  This is what is doable right now.

           

        3. Chance

          GWTF, none of what you speak of changes the fact that women still have options, while men do not have options.  I don’t believe anyone is saying that a woman’s options are optimal, but at least they are options.

           

          Also, if I were forced to go back in time 200 years to live in America, and I had a choice to be either a woman or a man, I’d choose to be a woman.

        4. GoWiththeFlow

          Chance,

          Women have incomplete and imperfect options, just like men do.  All options are not all available all of the time to all women.

          One thing men can do is to work on increasing their autonomy options by helping to support the development of male contraception.  Like I mentioned down thread, pharmaceutical companies aren’t working to develop male contraception because their consumer research shows them that men aren’t sufficiently interested enough in it for it to warrant the up-front financial investment in R & D.  A non-profit is developing and testing the only male contraception that is anywhere near close to being ready for market.

          Please share why you would wish to be a woman if you were in America 200 years ago.  I’m sure it’s fascinating.

        5. Jeremy

          @GWTF, I agree with most of your post.  In fact, if you read my previous posts (I know the thread is long and windy) you will see that I am not necessarily advocating a one-size-fits-all solution because it is a messy issue.  What I am saying is that the issue is not clear-cut.

           

          A few points.  First, regarding “patriarchy”, there are ways in which patriarchal society restricts women and ways that it privileges them.  Radical feminists choose to see only the restrictions, MRAs choose to see only the advantages.  Both are present.  This does not change the fact that your political system and healthcare system in the States is a mess right now.  I mean no disrespect to you as an American, but as a Canadian observing events south of the border I am somewhat appalled.

           

          In Canada, access to abortion is uncontested, free of charge, and available (though I am not sure about waiting lists or driving distances).  Nevertheless, regardless of the need to drive long distances and jump through hoops to obtain access to abortion in the States, the access is there (and will hopefully remain there).  The choice may be difficult, but at least it is there.

           

          Regarding your assertion that abortion is final whereas birth is continual…..I agree.  No contest.  That is why calling this issue “financial abortion” is nonsensical.  The equivalence is to adoption, not abortion.  A woman may give up her child for adoption (and incurs no ongoing costs to raise the child after that….why is that, again? See above re: protection), but that will not necessarily stop the child from searching her out later in life – emotions may be involved.  Should adoption be illegal?  Should birth parents be forced to contribute to upkeep of adopted children?

           

          Regarding the paternity issue for adoption, my understanding was that women are not required to list the birth father on the birth certificate if they don’t wish to do so.  If a woman wants to give up a child and not involve the dad, she is not required to do so.  If my understanding is incorrect, please let me know.

           

          As for your last paragraph, I agree totally.

        6. GoWiththeFlow

          Jeremy,

          “This does not change the fact that your political system and healthcare system in the States is a mess right now.  I mean no disrespect to you as an American, but as a Canadian observing events south of the border I am somewhat appalled.”

          I’m here and I’m appalled!  Trust me, the view from the inside isn’t any better that your view of it from up north 😉  Unfortunately you are seeing a prime example of some of the fallout from the convergence of our political and medical system messes on the subthread where the actual scientifically proven, very small risk to the health of a woman from both childbirth and abortion is misrepresented in sensationalistic and catastrophic ways to push a narrative that fits some people’s beliefs and biases.  It’s confirmation bias run amok and then enacted into public policy.

          “Nevertheless, regardless of the need to drive long distances and jump through hoops to obtain access to abortion in the States, the access is there (and will hopefully remain there).  The choice may be difficult, but at least it is there.”

          For the sake of BOTH women and men I hope the option, however difficult it is to access, remains as well.  We shall see.

          As far as adoption law goes, in the states, when an adoption is finalized, the child’s previous identity is legally wiped away.  So the question of whether birth mothers should be forced to pay child support to the adoptive parents of her child is moot since legally she and the child are no longer related.  Furthermore, there are tough, nearly iron clad privacy statutes that make it extremely difficult and impossible in many, if not most circumstances, for adopted children to find birth parents, and birth parents to find children that were adopted out.  There is an adoptee rights movement here to try and force local and state governments and adoption agencies to open up birth and adoption records.  The adult adoptees’ position is that they are being denied access to their basic identity which has consequences that greatly impact their lives.

          When I finalized the adoptions of my two kids, new birth certificates were issued which has me down in the “mother” spot so yes, in reality, the kids’ access to their genetic identity is being shut off in an official manner.  My two adopted kids’ birthparents chose to have closed adoptions***, and their names and other identifying information was redacted from all court and medical records.  I know the birth moms’ first names and ethnicity.  That’s it.

          To make the self-TPR proposition comparable to adoption, a man’s legal action to terminate his parental rights would have to include that his name is wiped off the child’s birth certificate and privacy laws would prevent the child from gaining access to that information through government records.  The big problem here is that while the “father” spot on the birth cert may now be blank, the mom, who had a sexual relationship with the father, knows the dad’s identity (I’m assuming very few of these situations are the result of random, nameless ONS) and can simply tell the child all about him.  Hence a self-TPRed dad is exponentially more likely to have the kid pop up in his life at a later time than a birthmother to an adopted out child will.

          As far as women being able to refuse to name her child’s father, it can be easily done in the situation where she is keeping the child.  An unmarried father, would then have to initiate legal action to be recognized as the child’s father.  I think there should be legal and civil law consequences for women who do this.  Like I said above, it’s a form of identity theft that negatively affects both the father and the child and is immoral in all but the very rarest of circumstances where the father is a threat to the mother and child.

          When the mother is trying to place the child for adoption, it’s much harder for her to do this.  All states require birthfather notification and either consent for the adoption, or a TPR action has to be taken by the court and usually takes several months.  Listing the father as unknown raises huge red flags to both adoption agencies and the courts.  A logical and consistent explanation (pregnancy due to a reported rape for example) has to be given before an adoption can proceed.

          Potential adoptive parents are cautioned that there is a “birthfather risk”(that’s actually what it’s called) if the birthfather is listed as unknown or a named father has not been contacted and notice given. This means that the child they thought they would be adopting can be removed from them if a father comes forward or is found, or finalization could be indefinitely delayed.

          In my daughter’s situation, there were multiple sexual partners in the month conception occurred, although the birth mom did state who she thought was the most likely one.  The agency had to legally serve all of the men with notice that they had been named as a potential birth dad.  They all legally signed TPR forms, so none were interested in definitively finding out if they were that dad and wanted to pursue custody.

          Despite the legal safeguards in place in most states to prevent a man’s child from being adopted out without his knowledge or consent, it’s something that can definitely be made better.  Utah has notoriously lax birthfather notification requirements.  This is where a national law or standard would be just and fair.  A birth mom couldn’t move to another state to get less stringent BF-TPR laws.

          *** From above.  I do know a few families who have open adoption where the birth mom is known to the adoptive family and visits have occurred.  And I have one adoptive mom friend who does not know and does not have contact with her child’s birth mom, as per her wishes, but she is in contact with the birth dad, sends him photos and information regularly, and has travelled cross country once for the dad to see his daughter.

        7. Jeremy

          Interesting info re: adoption requirements, thanks GWTF.  Regarding the confirmation bias in some of the posts, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – far more important than what we believe is why we believe it.  We can retrofit anything to make sense as long as we ignore what we don’t want to see.  To open our eyes to other perspectives is the beginning of wisdom.  Now that I know that steps are taken to obtain the father’s consent prior to adoption, I can stop asserting/believing that the mother need not ID the father (though I assume it is different for safe haven laws).

        8. Chance

          Hi GWTF, this discussion is dealing with options that are available to men and women in the event of an unplanned pregnancy.  In this event, women have options.  They may not be the best options, and all of these options may not always be available 100% of the time, but women do have options.  Men do not have options in this situation since going to jail isn’t an option.  The father is forced to support the child….. he has no other option.

           

          As it relates to male birth control, I believe what you’re saying, but could you please provide evidence of this?  It doesn’t correlate with my anecdotal experience, which is that most guys would love the opportunity to have male birth control based on conversations I’ve had.  I do think that women got the short end of the stick in that condomless, non-surgical forms of birth control proved historically easier to develop for women than for men, which likely caused people to become more complacent once it was developed and the development for a male equivalent wasn’t an urgency (to your point about the lack of funding – despite what seems to be a general willingness on the part of men to use it if it were available).  However, this also gives women an incredible amount of control (and unfortunate side effects as well).

           

          To your last question, I don’t know whether it was easier to be a man or woman 200 years ago, but as Jeremy said, feminists tend to focus on the restrictions placed on women of that time and MRAs tend to focus on the protections of women.  However, if I had to choose, I think I would go with being a woman when I consider my understanding of how men lived back then.  Hell, every time I see that “Lunch Atop a Skyscraper” photo I think, “man, that’s some BS!”, and that was just 85 years ago heh.

        9. Jeremy

          @Chance (and GWTF) re: male birth control….I think that men would like to have the option theoretically, but practically I think most will chicken out.  Vaselgel will require 2 injections into the testicles (ok, into the vas deferens, but most men won’t understand the difference), and further injections to clear it out.  Good luck convincing 18 year old boys to do this.  Also, good luck getting young men to take daily hormonal birth control pills (not that they are available).  Women do this because they have a visceral fear of pregnancy.  Most men won’t do it reliably, especially if there are side effects.

           

          I say this as a man who has undergone a vasectomy after having 4 children.  Even with a medical background, even with a thorough understanding of pros and cons, it took a LOT of self discipline and overcoming fear to have a procedure done down there.  Tell a young guy that he needs to get 2 shots to his balls and gauge his reaction, and realize why pharmaceutical companies are not backing vaselgel (in spite of the fact that it’s a great idea).

           

          Most women would love it if men were more proactive with birth control.  But most would not trust them to be.  One of life’s many unfairnesses is that the brunt of birth control falls to women because they are the ones who get pregnant.  Another is that men have no say after conception.

        10. Katie

          Women do this because they have a visceral fear of pregnancy.  Most men won’t do it reliably, especially if there are side effects.

          Wow. Until I read this I fully supported the notion of men not paying for kids they don’t want, but this statement makes me reconsider.

          “Women have a visceral fear of pregnancy”. But men don’t? They should!

          Side effects for male birth control?! Injections?! Oh no! You do know that female birth control is no picnic right?

          This statement aggravates me.

           

        11. Chance

          Yeah, I could see men liking a shot in the balls  about as much as women would like a shot in the clit :).  I have no idea how reliable men would be in taking pills if they were available, but I know I would take them even with the side effects.  You are probably aware of the study on male birth control that was called off due to side effects.  While many female journalists predictably concluded that these men were a bunch of whiners and used it as an opportunity to shame, what seems to be ignored is that the study was called off by the people conducting the study, and that the majority of men who participated still were interested in that form of birth control despite the side effects.

           

          Personally, I advocate using a condom at all times – even within the context of a marriage. Hopefully, most women are empathetic enough to understand why a man should need to do this since he has no rights or control in this regard.

        12. Jeremy

          @Katie, I agree with you.  Men SHOULD be afraid of unwanted pregnancy as women are.  Men SHOULD be aware of the side effects of female birth control (as I am, BTW).  They aren’t because they are (by an large) blinded by the one-sidedness of their personal experience.  As are women.  Which explains the lack of empathy that so many people of each gender have for the other.

           

          Pregnancy will affect men, but not as directly as it does women.  So many men don’t accurately judge the risk-reward ratio.  They disregard possible side-effects of Viagra because of the direct pleasure associated with its use.  Invent male birth control that also induces orgasm and problem solved 🙂

        13. KK

          Chance said, “Personally, I advocate using a condom at all times – even within the context of a marriage. Hopefully, most women are empathetic enough to understand why a man should need to do this since he has no rights or control in this regard”.

          Women are empathetic with empathetic men. If a man voices his disregard and disrespect of women, that man won’t have to worry about birth control, if you know what I mean. If one constantly degrades women on a website, they either truly feel that way and lie to the women in their lives or they’re lying on here for a reaction.

          Likewise, comments such as Stacy2’s entrapping some guy and making him a father by being ‘nice’ and then letting her true colors show after a child is born are equally disturbing.

          Yuck!

        14. Tron Swanson

          There’s a third option, KK: namely, that we’re honest with the women in our lives. In my case, some of them agree with me, and some of them don’t.

        15. Katie

          Yeah, I could see men liking a shot in the balls  about as much as women would like a shot in the clit :).  

          Clits and balls are not analogous body structures in any way.

          Closest female equivalent to getting a shot in the balls would be a shot in the labia majora. Sorta a big difference from clit.

        16. Katie

          Edit: Labia majora and balls are analogous as far as skin sensitivity at least. So perhaps I should specify ballsack.

          But whatever! It’s not the same as a shot in the clit omfg

        17. KK

          Tron said, “There’s a third option, KK: namely, that we’re honest with the women in our lives”.

          Yes, I mentioned that: “If a man voices his disregard and disrespect of women, that man won’t have to worry about birth control, if you know what I mean”.

          If you or Chance SAID the things you do on here to an actual real life woman, she wouldn’t get involved with either one of you, let alone have sex with you. Unless, of course, she’s bat shit crazy; which may explain the attitude in the first place. Hmmm… chicken? egg?

           

        18. GoWiththeFlow

          Jeremy,

          “Invent male birth control that also induces orgasm and problem solved.”

          You are a genius!

          I think that for thousands of years men had the biological and social option of walking away from an unwanted pregnancy, or an unwanted birth mom.  The stigma of being a bastard was borne by the child and the woman.  (I’m old enough that my original, long-form birth certificate has a box with the question “Is this a legitimate birth?”) A man could have several known children out of wedlock and still become Pope, literally.  And men always had the option of denying paternity, because is wasn’t their body the kid came out of so where’s the proof?  When I was a kid, girls were commonly warned that if you “got in trouble”–got pregnant–all the guy had to do was get some of his friends to tell the judge that they slept with you too, and you wouldn’t get any court ordered support, on top of the whole public humiliation thing.

          So I think that there is still something in the base subconscious part of men’s brains that just doesn’t immediately connect consequences to sex and throw up “proceed with caution” flags in the the situation where there is an attractive female.  Women don’t have that biological/evolutionary luxury.  We see red flags.  I think that’s why so many women, whenever this subject comes up, get so upset when men separate sex and unplanned pregnancies.  “I consented to sex, not to being a dad!” I know more than a few women who’s husbands or boyfriends said “How did this happen?” when a positive pregnancy test came back.

          BTW, I had to have an injection in the globe of my eye to that acute glaucoma.  I have known my ophthalmologist since we were in med school together and I spend about 25% of my work time at an eye surgery center.  I NEVER want to do that again, EVER!

        19. Tron Swanson

          KK,

          I do indeed say those things, because I believe that honesty is the best policy, and it hasn’t hurt me that much. I don’t know why you think it would. I mean, take a look at who’s in the White House, and how many women voted for him. Compared to that, I’m practically inoffensive!

        20. Chance

          Hi Katie!

           

          “Labia majora and balls are analogous as far as skin sensitivity at least. So perhaps I should specify ballsack.

          But whatever! It’s not the same as a shot in the clit omfg”

           

          LOL how could you possibly know?  So, basically, you’re saying that it’s the same, but it’s not the same because you don’t like the idea that it’s the same.

           

          I have no clue what’s worse.  However, a lot of women like to shame men for being skittish about getting a shot in the balls since women get a shot in the arm for their birth control…  as if that’s the same thing.  I’ll tell you that I am MUCH more comfortable with getting a shot in the arm.  I would still get the ball-shot, but I would have to psych myself up for it first lol.

        21. Katie

          LOL how could you possibly know?  So, basically, you’re saying that it’s the same, but it’s not the same because you don’t like the idea that it’s the same.

          During fetal development the tissue that develops into the labia in lady bodies develops into ballsack tissue in dude bodies. Therefore the tissue is similar and that’s what I mean by analogous.

          Clits completely different though.

          I have no clue what’s worse. 

          Clit is worse. The most similar comparison would be several shots at the same time into the head of an uncircumcised cock. Same number of nerve endings in the clit that in the whole area of the head of the cock.

          However, a lot of women like to shame men for being skittish about getting a shot in the balls since women get a shot in the arm for their birth control…  as if that’s the same thing.  I’ll tell you that I am MUCH more comfortable with getting a shot in the arm. 

          You clearly know very little about birth control options. Many women can’t do the deprov shot you’re talking about. It’s high hormone and fucks some of us up.

          I enjoyed having an IUD inserted into my cervix a couple weeks ago though.

        22. KK

          Faulty comparison, Tron. Most likely women (and men) who voted for him did so in spite of his lack of character; not because of it. That’s completely besides the point.

          I’m just going to speculate wildly here and say all three of his wives were either completely clueless as to what his character was when they first married him or did so regardless of his poor character because of his wealth. Did you see how happy Melania looked during the inauguration? LOL. Poor thing looked trapped.

        23. Tron Swanson

          KK,

          Faulty comparison or not, the facts remain the facts: namely, that voicing these opinions hasn’t hurt my chances all that much. In fact, in many cases, women are eager to jump in and agree with me. Also, there’s the fact that I have even worse things to say about my own gender…

        24. Shaukat

          If a man voices his disregard and disrespect of women, that man won’t have to worry about birth control, if you know what I mean

          KK, a man isn’t necessarily voicing any ‘disrespect’ for women if he states that he’s only interested in sex and not relationships, so long as he’s honest or not overtly deceitful about it. You seem to be conflating a man’s exclusive interest in NSA sex with the notion that such an attitude reduces a woman’s intrinsic value to her sex appeal. This doesn’t have to be the case, and often it’s not.

        25. KK

          Shaukat,

          I’m not conflating anything here. Unfortunately, you’ve missed the point by reading more into a statement than what is there. If someone engages in NSA sex and is upfront and honest about it, that’s fine. That’s not what I was referring to. I was referring to the continued disrespectful and sometimes down right hateful comments about women. If a man doesn’t like women and sees them only as sexual objects, I have a strong suspicion that man will have trouble getting sex from women IF he is honest about his feelings about women. It really isn’t difficult to understand.

          Since (some of) you have a hard time getting it, I will use the reverse scenario to help you out. If you know a woman that constantly complains about men… “they’re all alike… they’re pigs… they’re users and abusers… etc and so on…” Do you think that woman TELLS the men in her life what she really thinks? Hell no. And if she does, she’ll never have a relationship with a normal guy. She might be used for sex and that’s about it. But most women don’t operate that way. If she knows or finds out the man she’s seeing is a mysoginistic jerk, not only will she not want a relationship with him, she wouldn’t want FWB either. It would be the equivalent of a black man becoming friends with a KKK member. Normal people don’t want to be around people that hate them.

        26. Shaukat

          I was referring specifically to your correspondence with Tron. Maybe I missed it, but I don’t recall him ever making the type of comments you alluded to in your example, though I do recall him saying that he feels that women haven’t treated him well and that he only wants sex. Thus, I could only infer that it was the latter attitude you were taking issue with.

          To draw a more appropriate analogy, if a woman stated that she was continously disappointed in her romantic relationships with men and was no longer interested in such interactions, I wouldn’t call her a sexist.

        27. KK

          “I was referring specifically to your correspondence with Tron. Maybe I missed it, but I don’t recall him ever making the type of comments you alluded to in your example, though I do recall him saying that he feels that women haven’t treated him well and that he only wants sex. Thus, I could only infer that it was the latter attitude you were taking issue with”.

          Shaukat, the comment that Tron responded to wasn’t even directed at him. I specifically quoted what Chance had said in reference to a woman’s empathy and my comment pointed out the irony, in that Chance has never reciprocated that empathy towards women, at least in his comments here. For the most part, it’s a barrage of red pill dialogue.

          Since Tron decided to jump in and defend those comments, I continued the dialogue with him.

          “To draw a more appropriate analogy, if a woman stated that she was continously disappointed in her romantic relationships with men and was no longer interested in such interactions, I wouldn’t call her a sexist”.

          Neither would I. But there’s a distinction between saying you’ve been continuously  disappointed in relationships and are therefore no longer interested in relationships and saying you’ve been disappointed in relationships because ALL men / women suck.

           

        28. Chance

          Hi Shaukat, you’re just reading what amounts to more personal attacks from an obsessed poster.  You may pass out if you seek to find logic in any of it.

        29. KK

          Excuse me, Chance. I misspoke or mistyped, rather. Redpiller would be more accurate. You still haven’t pointed out any flaws in my logic, although that’s a common rant of yours.

          I will repeat what you have said more than once: “I am here to fight back against women”. Sparkling Emerald shot down that illogical statement and you couldn’t reply. You’ve also stated: “I know what women want more than they do”. When asked, you couldn’t come up with ONE example and when that statement got shot down, you couldn’t reply. You have made MANY very negative statements aimed at ALL women.

          Upthread, you went on an emotional rant about what you would do if you became a father. I clearly pointed out how two of your statements clearly contradicted one another. You couldn’t reply. Stacy2 made a statement regarding the possibility of a man sabatoging birth control methods and very clearly stated she was not talking about rape, but forced pregnancy through sabatoge. Your reply to her referenced rape. You referred to me as an obsessed poster because I call you out. Yet you’re on Stacy2 like white on rice. I mean, you’re whole purpose of being here is to fight back, right? Who then is an obsessed poster?

          I’m not personally attacking you by pointing out your flaws in logic or reading comprehension. Anyone can misread, misinterpret, or misunderstand something. But if you’re here to fight back, wouldn’t it be fair game for others to fight back against your illogical statements and extreme biases? Sounds pretty damn logical to me.

        30. SparklingEmerald

          CORRECTION:

          you can’t expect a man to decipher that she isn’t, it would be in his interest to do so.  s/b you can’t expect a man to decipher that she isn’t, it would NOT be in his interest to do so.

        31. GoWiththeFlow

          Emily, Tom, Chance, & SE,

          I think that the psychological mechanism why women get into long term FWB pseudo-relationships and men get into long term friend-zone situations is the same:  They are getting itermittent-inconsistent reward from the object of their affections.  This is the same psychological mechanism that makes gambling so addictive. And just like with a slot machine or game of dice, the addicted person keeps going at it because their focus is the big win, not the money they continue to lose.  They just know they will get the demonstration of affection and love if they keep going because they have gotten it before.  Just like the slot machine throws out some coin, and you do manage to win a dice game every now and then.  You just know you will win the jackpot very soon!

          I do think that Emily is right about two things:  1) that both men and women will experience this at least once in their lives.   2) That, in the case of women, we appreciate a man who directly tells us his attentions because in these LT-FWB situations the man is inconsistent in his words and actions.  Sometimes (especially at the beginning) he will say his dream is to get married and have kids.  He will spend whole weekends with you, make big gestures with gifts, introduce you to friends, attend your family and work functions with you, etc.  He just never wants to take the next step, will side-step relationship discussions, and the woman is always on edge not ever feeling secure.  I imagine the experience is similar for men in LT-FZ situations.  Thankfully, I think the majority of men and women do learn from their experiences, and carefully watch for consistent and decisive behavior in subsequent relationship go-arounds.

        32. SparklingEmerald

          GWTF –  Somewhere in the sea of ellipses . . . you made a very good analogy about people getting into  LT/FWB or FriendZone situations with gambling.

          EXCELLENT analogy and thoughtful, and I think the gambling analogy is dead on !

          Also, although I do think the person who cares the least is a bit remiss in not ending things to put the other out of their misery, I don’t really think they are horrible, dreadful people,  just human.

          The sex drive, love drive, reproduction drive is a very, very, strong force, as strong as the survival mode, IMHO.  (after all, as individuals we don’t need to re-produce to survive, but as a race we do).

          Just as a starving person will eat crumbs off the floor to survive, a love starved female and a sex starved man will often feed off the crumbs they give each other in order to survive emotionally.

          I don’t think there is a truly “bad guy/gal” here, but just two people following their biological hard wiring.  Unfortunately, feelings gets hurt in these situations.  Fortunately, most people DO survive, and go on to something more mutually satisfying with someone else.

        33. Tron Swanson

          GWTF,

          In my case, I do FWBs because I have no interest in dating or relationships. Also, I’ve never been a gambler, and I’ve never been a “thrill of the chase” guy. I prefer things that are simple and guaranteed.

        34. Tom10

          @ Tron Swanson
          “I do FWBs because I have no interest in dating or relationships…I prefer things that are simple and guaranteed.”
           
          I have to ask Tron, (and I mean no offence) are the women you date attractive at all? I can’t imagine your dating techniques work with women with any other options. I understand why you’re not into dating or relationships, but you don’t seem to want to make any effort at all?
           
          Your methods might work if you were tall and drop-dead gorgeous, but you’ve said previously you’re not.
           
          Just curious…

        35. Emily, the original

          Tron,

          Also, I’ve never been a gambler, and I’ve never been a “thrill of the chase” guy. I prefer things that are simple and guaranteed.

          Really? Sometimes the chase — figuring out what you will say, how you will get the person in the room, what you will wear, what you will do, etc. — can be as good or better than the actual sex.

        36. Emily, the original

          Sparkling Emerald,

          Also, although I do think the person who cares the least is a bit remiss in not ending things to put the other out of their misery, I don’t really think they are horrible, dreadful people,  just human.

          Agreed. Sorry, I didn’t see this post before I wrote my last post to you.

        37. Tron Swanson

          Tom,

          First of all, as I’ve said before, I don’t date.

          The women I’m involved with are at my own level of attraction. Now, in terms of sheer looks, I’m probably about an 8. The height knocks it down to a physical 7. When you start factoring in non-physical traits, my value really starts to drop…luckily, I’ve chosen to de-emphasize those traits. So, yes, I’m FWBs with fellow 7s.

          I’ve found that many women have a low threshold for engaging in sex. If you present yourself as a dating/boyfriend candidate, that’s how they’ll treat you: they’ll subject you to a grueling job-interview-like process and generally take advantage of your attempts to impress them. But if you present yourself as a sexual candidate only…well, most women will reject you, but rejection is what normally happens anyway, right? The remaining women will know that you’re up for whatever. If you treat them well, all you have to do is wait for them to get in a sexual mood. Women’s moods tend to be all over the map, so it’s only a matter of time (and luck).

          The cognitive dissonance of all this is just crazy to me. On the one hand, men are told that casual sex is impossible to obtain, and that we have to relegate ourselves to dating/relationships. On the other, we constantly hear and see evidence about casual sex being hugely popular, with most women partaking in it at various points in their lives. It’s usually just a phase, but I’ve gotten good at spotting the ones in that phase. Why not ditch the depressing system and live out in the proverbial frontier? While you’re paying for a chaste date, women all over the planet are banging guys that they just met an hour ago, or guys that they’d never view as relationship material. When I look at the guys that are getting hot women, they’re usually clueless, okay-looking randos that were just in the right place at the right time. They certainly didn’t expend a lot of effort–they weren’t smart enough to come up with any sort of strategy! Sex is supposed to be idiot-proof, it doesn’t reward overthinking or overworking. If it isn’t happening naturally and immediately, it probably isn’t happening period.

          Emily,

          I found the concept of “the chase” to be frustrating and tedious, and gave up on it almost immediately.

        38. Emily, the original

          Tron,

          When I look at the guys that are getting hot women, they’re usually clueless, okay-looking randos that were just in the right place at the right time.

          They probably approached her, too. She was in their physical proximity and they went up to her and broke the ice. Just getting a woman into a conversation is big. A lot of guys don’t do it. If you can talk to her (and provided she’s in the market for casual sex), you’re at least halfway there. The rest of it is if she finds you physically appealing, and the level of importance she places on that when she engages in casual sex is different for each woman.

        39. Tom10

          @ Tron
          “First of all, as I’ve said before, I don’t date”
           
          My bad. I should have said “are the women you have sex with attractive at all?” Lol.
           
          “So, yes, I’m FWBs with fellow 7s”
           
          Fair enough. So I suppose my next question is, where do you meet all your fellow 7s?

        40. Tron Swanson

          Emily,

          You could very well be right. Regardless, I avoid “offline” pursuing as much as possible, because I’ve already wasted too much of my effort on women. It sends a bad message–that you’re worth it, and we aren’t. I can’t stop other guys from offline approaching, but I refuse to do it myself.

          Tom,

          Online. I create super-generic profiles and send super-generic messages. It’s a numbers game, but it’s low-effort and doesn’t take much time. Just a lot of copy/pasting.

        41. Emily, the original

          GoWiththeFlow,

          I think that the psychological mechanism why women get into long term FWB pseudo-relationships and men get into long term friend-zone situations is the same:  They are getting itermittent-inconsistent reward from the object of their affections.  This is the same psychological mechanism that makes gambling so addictive.

          The New York Times had a great article called “I Heart Unpredictable Love” about psychological experiments that were conducted that underscored much of what you wrote:
          “If you are involved with someone who is unpredictably loving, you might not like it very much — but your reward circuit is sure going to notice the capricious behavior and give you information that might conflict with what you believe consciously is in your best interest.
          Indeed, you may not even be aware of your own reward circuit’s activity. One of the curious things that Professor Berns found was that most of his subjects couldn’t tell the difference between the predictable or unpredictable condition in which the reward was given.
          Since unpredictable rewards cause more dopamine release than predictable ones and more dopamine means more pleasure, one implication of this study is that people experience more pleasure with unpredictable rewards than with predictable ones — but they may not be consciously aware of this fact.”

        42. Tron Swanson

          If I liked unpredictability, wouldn’t I be asking out a lot of women, since the results are unpredictable? Honestly, I’m one of the most risk-averse people you’ll ever meet. But I guess that “you’re doing this for emotional reasons” fits your worldview better than “you’re doing this because you like sex”.

          If they ever invent VR porn or sexbots, or if they ever legalize prostitution, I’ll go do that instead of FWBs. (I want something as guaranteed as possible, not something intermittent and risky.) I look forward to finding out my “emotional reason” for doing so! Will I suddenly stop being a risk-lover and turn into something else?

        43. Emily, the original

          Tron,

          If I liked unpredictability, wouldn’t I be asking out a lot of women, since the results are unpredictable? Honestly, I’m one of the most risk-averse people you’ll ever meet.

          The name of the article is “I Heart Unpredicatable Love.” It sounds like you are looking for guaranteed sex. Those are 2 different things. Surely there are websites you could use for people who just want to hook up? You wouldn’t need to go through the pretense of meeting for anything other than sex.

      3. 9.4.3
        KK

        Au contraire, MGTOW dude. Point out the logical flaw, please. I’ll check back.

        1. Chance

          First, I’m not MGTOW, and never claimed to be.  Second, just because someone criticizes women when they aren’t being reasonable doesn’t mean they lack empathy for them.  Third, you appear to be equating Stacy2’s open admission of duplicity to me because, apparently, when a man criticizes behaviors of certain women or many women, that means he hates all women or thinks that all women suck, and therefore, he is lying to his partner.  Makes no sense.

           

          Don’t wish to further discuss because you can’t debate without making it about the person instead of the topic and your points are too often illogical.  It’s a fruitless endeavor.

        2. Chance

          When someone ignores you, it doesn’t mean that he/she isn’t capable of replying.  Not sure what you’re taking about with your first reference.  Your second, third, and fourth references are inaccurate and/or your initial assertion was inaccurate.  It’s quite flattering that you spend so much time closely reading and documenting seemingly everything I write, but honestly, is this the best use of your time?  You have kids to raise, don’t you?  You’re free to do whatever you want, though, but the more you respond to me just shows how much I matter to you and get under your skin.

        3. Shaukat

          Just to modify what I stated above, a man doesn’t have to be up front about wanting NSA sex to not be manipulative. As long as he doesn’t overtly lie about his intentions, that’s fine.

          Also, not really interested in inserting myself into this debate, but I didn’t notice anyone obsessing over or constantly pouncing on Stacy2’s comments. Some of her statements are quite frankly outlandish and should be challenged, though to be fair, I have agreed with some of her more sober statements and observations.

        4. KK

          “When someone ignores you, it doesn’t mean that he/she isn’t capable of replying”.

          This is sometimes true. What else is sometimes true, and most likely when dealing with a very vocal individual, is that they can’t come up with anything to refute a particular statement, and therefore suddenly go silent. Especially when said person has made it some kind of mission to fight back. Jeez.

          “Not sure what you’re taking about with your first reference”.

          Come on now… I’m not the first or only person to point out that many of your comments are red pill dialogue. Let’s at least be honest, shall we?

          “Your second, third, and fourth references are inaccurate and/or your initial assertion was inaccurate”.

          How so? Elaborate. You have no problem elaborating on other topics. If you read the conversation between Shaukat and I, I never said any of his statements were innacurate without explaining myself.

          “It’s quite flattering that you spend so much time closely reading and documenting seemingly everything I write, but honestly, is this the best use of your time?”

          Likewise, Chance. It’s not difficult to remember outrageous statements. You had no problem remembering Stacy2’s statements. But let’s break this down a little further. This is a website for women. Men are welcome to comment but the information presented isn’t geared toward men. I’m here to learn new information. Many of your comments are petty in nature and insulting; thereby distracting others from what they’re here for. If I, or anyone else choose to point that out, how exactly are we not making the most use of our time? Is this the best use of your time?

          “You have kids to raise, don’t you?”

          Is this another NON personal attack? If I choose to use some of my free time at work, while my kids are at school, to respond to petty BS, that’s my prerogative. Aren’t you at work, Chance?

          “You’re free to do whatever you want, though, but the more you respond to me just shows how much I matter to you and get under your skin.”

          I’m free to do whatever I want? No joke, eh? Wow! Ignorance definitely gets under my skin. No need to deny that. I’m pretty sure I get under your skin much more. It’s for a different reason, though. You want to be able to make ridiculous comments insulting women without any blow back. I regularly challenge those comments, which really fires you up. How many times have you said you would never respond to me again? Seems dishonest. You can fight back against imaginary opponents all you want, but there’s nothing to win.

           

           

           

        5. Chance

          KK, the first reference I was talking about relates to SE’s apparent comment.  Don’t know what you’re talking about there.  The second reference is that I did provide examples.  Your third reference is wrong in that those two statements don’t contradict one another.  One can commit a selfish or horrendous act against another, but that other person can regain control if he is willing to accept alternative consequences.  Also, a pregnant woman doesn’t have to be using a child as a pawn to be committing the terrible act of forcing a man to support a child he doesn’t want.  She could just simply want to have a child and want someone else to pay for it… in fact, this is more frequently the case.  The fourth reference is that it isn’t true that I’ve made many statements directed at all women.  I often use the terms “some”, “many”, “most”, but almost never “all” when describing women – with the lone exception being your favorite comment that was lobbed out there just for you.  See, here I am talking about me again instead of the subject at hand.  This is how it always ends up with you, which is why I stopped responding to you for a while.

        6. Emily, the original

          Shaukat,

          Just to modify what I stated above, a man doesn’t have to be up front about wanting NSA sex to not be manipulative.

          Nothing wrong with NSA sex as long as your actions define what you want. NSA sex means she’s coming over your house, staying for a few hours and then leaving. If that’s what happening, there’s no need for a discussion to “dtr.” There is no relationship. But if you are in daily contact, if you are meeting up to go out on “dates,” if you are introducing her to your family and friends, if you are expecting some kind of emotional support, if you are acting like a boyfriend but you don’t want to be one, then, yes, you are manipulating her.

        7. Chance

          Hi Emily, do a lot of people do what you describe?  I would’ve thought that it would be really hard to do “boyfriend” things on a consistent basis if a guy didn’t want to be in a relationship because consistently doing those things would defeat the purpose of NSA sex.  People who aren’t interested in relationships are typically the ones who are inconsistent, or give “mixed messages”.

        8. Shaukat

          Emily, I agree, but I honestly can’t imagine anyone man who just wants NSA sex introducing the woman to his family and friends. I doubt that ever happens.

        9. Emily, the original

          Hi Chance,

          What I have sometimes come across is men who want the NSA sex and also want women to care about … on their terms. I had a male friend who thought he was giving women a different kind of experience if he took them out to dinner and then stayed with them until morning.  In his mind, that was different than just showing up for sex and leaving directly afterward. He called these experiences “sexual romances,” and the sex was better for him if he took them out first. He liked presentation of it, somehow thought there was more emotion to it, but to me it was all the same: casual sex. He was still leaving, whether he left at 10 a.m. or 10 p.m.

        10. Emily, the original

          Chance and Shaukat,

          Evan did a post on it. The emotionally unavailable man. He wants all the things that come with being a boyfriend, he will do all the things that being a boyfriend implies, but he’s not a boyfriend, and his justification for his behavior (and the mixed signals it gives) is that he keeps telling the woman he doesn’t want anything serious.

          What To Do With An Emotionally Unavailable Man

        11. Chance

          Hi Emily, I can understand the frustration.  I don’t think what you describe w/your friend necessarily amounts to “boyfriend” behavior IMO.  However, that’s the thing, what counts as “boyfriend” or “girlfriend” behavior varies from person to person.  I’ve known girls who thought that we were in an exclusive relationship once we had sex for the first time, and I’ve known girls who didn’t think that continuous dating and sex over a period of months equates to an intention to move towards a relationship.  This is why I believe it is up to the person who isn’t satisfied with the current arrangement to verbalize his/her expectations, which then leaves no room for confusion.

        12. Emily, the original

          Hi Chance,

          Emily, I can understand the frustration. 

          I wasn’t being coy. This guy really is my friend. I’ve never hooked up with him, but he tells me about his dating habits and I feel sometimes like I should issue an all-points female bulletin to warn the other women out there!

          Come to think of it … if you don’t mind me putting on my Adrian hat for a bit ( :)), are there women you’ve known who you feel you should warn your male friends about? What would she have to do to warrant such a warning? I mean, it’s not the same for men. If a woman hooks up with a man and then tosses him aside, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, is it? I mean from a guy’s point of view.

        13. KK

          Hi chance,

          You’re wrong on all accounts. If you say you’ll support your child no matter what and your next statement gives the exceptions as to why you wouldn’t support your child, you have nullified your first statement. Both cannot be true. Simple. The end.

        14. KK

          “Just to modify what I stated above, a man doesn’t have to be up front about wanting NSA sex to not be manipulative. As long as he doesn’t overtly lie about his intentions, that’s fine”.

          Shaukat, what do you mean exactly when you say “overtly lie”?

          When is it okay to be deceptive as long as you don’t overtly lie? Are you okay with everyone else doing this in every other situation in life? How about your accountant, your financial advisor, your attorney? Are you okay with any of those people deceiving you by not being up front with their true intentions as long as they don’t overtly lie?

        15. Tom10

          @ Emily, the original
          “he tells me about his dating habits and I feel sometimes like I should issue an all-points female bulletin to warn the other women out there!”
           
          Lol.
           
          “are there women you’ve known who you feel you should warn your male friends about? What would she have to do to warrant such a warning? I mean, it’s not the same for men.
           
          I think a more pertinent comparison would be notifying my male friends about potential gold-diggers; I know a few guys who date pretty women from Eastern Europe/South America who “use” these guys for fancy dinners etc. However, almost always, these women are prettier than the indigenous women the guys could otherwise get so, from my perspective, it’s a fair deal for both parties: the girl is compromising on chemistry in exchange for access to his resources and the guy is expending his resources in exchange for access to a higher chemistry woman.
           
          Therefore, it’s not my place to warn guys out there about potential gold-diggers: if those guys want to chase higher-chemistry women through their $$$ it’s their prerogative. What gets my goat is when they subsequently complain after getting burned by these women; it was his choice to prioritize chemistry over compatibility so his complaints about gold-diggers falls on deaf ears.
           
          Similarly, Emily, I don’t think you have a moral obligation to warn women out there from being burned by your male friend; it’s their (women’s’) choice if they want to prioritize chemistry over compatibility, so their subsequent moaning when they get burned is unbecoming.
           
          “If a woman hooks up with a man and then tosses him aside, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, is it? I mean from a guy’s point of view”
           
          Not for me anyway; I’m actually flattered when it happens. Lol.

        16. Shaukat

          When is it okay to be deceptive as long as you don’t overtly lie? Are you okay with everyone else doing this in every other situation in life?

          It happens all the time within the dating sphere KK, which is different from the type of professional situations you mentioned (lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc). How often do women go on three or four dates, letting the man pick up the cheque, on the grounds that maybe the weak chemistry will develop further over this time? How often do women remain in platonic friendships in the context of unrequited love because they simply enjoy the emotional and intellectual benefits of the friendship?

          It happens. The burden is on the party who is unsure/dissatisfied to say something and walk away. I’d also argue that among millennials it’s pretty much understood that sex doesn’t necessarily denote a long-term commitment, and so most don’t take it as an indicator of deception if an individual doesn’t commit after the act.

          If you’re old school that’s fine. Make your intentions/preferences/values known so you can avoid that situation.

        17. Emily, the original

          Tom10,

          I’m not going near the gold digger topic. No offense, but I don’t find it interesting. I have never in my life gone out with a man simply because he could buy me a fancy dinner. Or simply because he had money. I’d rather sit at home than be forced to make conversation and act interested in someone I’m not.

          Similarly, Emily, I don’t think you have a moral obligation to warn women out there from being burned by your male friend; it’s their (women’s’) choice if they want to prioritize chemistry over compatibility, so their subsequent moaning when they get burned is unbecoming.

          I haven’t met the women he’s dated. He just tells me about them. And from my estimation they aren’t prioritizing chemistry over compatibility. This guy looks like Mr. Magoo. He himself is not picky. He’s one of those men I’ve written about on this site who has no discretion. He tells me he can find something attractive about any woman. (Gag!)  🙂

          Not for me anyway; I’m actually flattered when it happens. Lol.

          Were there never times you actually liked the girl and were disappointed she didn’t want to see you again?

        18. Chance

          @Emily – no worries…. I didn’t think you hooked up with him.  I just thought that you found that type of behavior to be frustrating in general.  As it relates to your question:

           

          “are there women you’ve known who you feel you should warn your male friends about? What would she have to do to warrant such a warning? I mean, it’s not the same for men. If a woman hooks up with a man and then tosses him aside, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, is it? I mean from a guy’s point of view.”

           

          Yes, there are certainly women out there who I had to warn my male friends about.  However, it was for different reasons, of course.  From teens through mid-20’s, it was mostly due to girls/women who were keeping guys in their attention web for validation even though they weren’t interested sexually or romantically.  As I’ve gotten older, late 20’s onward, it has been to protect a guy from getting used for financial reasons.

           

          @KK – ah, I understand now.  I misinterpreted your original comment because it read like you were saying that I was contradicting myself in a different manner.  However, there is still no contradiction.  You seem to forget that I noted that the whole going to jail thing was a fantasy.  People fantasize all the time about doing things they would never actually do.  You get an “A” for effort, though.

        19. Emily, the original

          Tom10,

          Btw, a man can be very honest with a woman about wanting NSA sex. Deception or a lie by omission isn’t necessary. I had a male friend at work (we’ve been friends for a couple of years) point-blank proposition me last week, and he made it very clear it would be what he called a sex-only “tour of duty.” (I laughed at that.)  I was actually impressed. It was a bold, decisive move. No flim flam. No tossing out a bunch of flirty comments to test the waters and see how I would respond. I knew exactly where he stood and what he wanted.

        20. Emily, the original

          Chance,

          From teens through mid-20’s, it was mostly due to girls/women who were keeping guys in their attention web for validation even though they weren’t interested sexually or romantically

          Ah, that is a selfish thing to do, but I’ve seen men do something similar: Keep giving a woman just enough attention so she thinks he’s interested but he really isn’t. He’s keeping her on standby just in case.

           

        21. Tom10

          @ Emily, the original
          “I’m not going near the gold digger topic. No offense, but I don’t find it interesting.”
           
          No offence taken – I don’t find it interesting either! 🙂
           
          I just see it as a more equivalent/comparable example to guys using women for sex than the simple inverse of women using guys for sex (as you say, for many/most guys, women wanting to use him for sex isn’t the worst feeling in the world).
           
          “I have never in my life gone out with a man simply because he could buy me a fancy dinner”
           
          Yes but other women have. You have plenty of your own dosh (I presume!) so you can treat yourself to the nice things in life. Other women mightn’t have this luxury and so will compromise on chemistry to taste some of the finer things in life. Different strokes for different folks eh? 😉
           
          “This guy looks like Mr. Magoo”
           
          Hahaha!
           
          And from my estimation they aren’t prioritizing chemistry over compatibility”.
           
          Ah right, slightly different situation so. He’s probably funny and charming and knows what to say to make them feel good – I get the impression the ladies he dates aren’t used to being treated well by men, so they fall easily when a charmer says the right things.
           
          “He’s one of those men I’ve written about on this site who has no discretion. He tells me he can find something attractive about any woman”.
           
          Yeah I know a few guys like that as well; if it makes him happy it’s all good…
           
          “Were there never times you actually liked the girl and were disappointed she didn’t want to see you again?”
           
          Yes absolutely. Most times it happens in fact.
           
          Only the highest-quality women I can attract will treat me as expendable; they feel they can do better than me, which is why they can afford to ignore me afterwards. The more average women I meet will be much more enthusiastic to see me again.
           
          However, I see the glass as half-full; I’m simply happy to be with that quality of woman in the first place, if even for just the night. The 90% positive feeling derived from sleeping with her far out-weighs the 10% negative feeling when she ignores me afterwards. This is possibly an anathematic concept for women to appreciate, is it?
           
          “Btw, a man can be very honest with a woman about wanting NSA sex. Deception or a lie by omission isn’t necessary”
           
          Agreed; I’m aware that a huge percentage of women have no objection to partaking in NSA sex and really appreciate when guys are just honest about it.
           
          “I had a male friend at work (we’ve been friends for a couple of years) point-blank proposition me last week, and he made it very clear it would be what he called a sex-only “tour of duty.”…I knew exactly where he stood and what he wanted.”
           
          Well that’s very well and good, but did you take him up on his kind offer? (no need to answer if you prefer not).
           
          If yes, then his forthrightness was effective, noble and laudable. If not, then his forthrightness was ineffective and, um, therefore inadvisable?
           
          The proof is in the pudding as they say…

        22. Emily, the original

          Tom10,

          You have plenty of your own dosh (I presume!) so you can treat yourself to the nice things in life.Actually, no. I work in an industry that doesn’t pay well. But to quote Marilyn Monroe, “I’m not interested in money. I just want to be wonderful.”  🙂
          I get the impression the ladies he dates aren’t used to being treated well by men, so they fall easily when a charmer says the right things.

          Yes, he targets the ones who don’t get a lot of attention.

          “He’s one of those men I’ve written about on this site who has no discretion.”

          What I find strange is that he has never really felt so attracted to a woman, he was overwhelmed by her. I guess you don’t feel that if you like every woman.

          “I’m simply happy to be with that quality of woman in the first place, if even for just the night. The 90% positive feeling derived from sleeping with her far out-weighs the 10% negative feeling when she ignores me afterwards. This is possibly an anathematic concept for women to appreciate, is it?”

          No, actually, I get it. I’d rather have one night with someone i was really into than months with someone I had middling feelings for. And I agree with you. The ones you have middling feelings for ALWAYS call you the next day. It’s just how the universe works.

          Did you take him up on his kind offer?  If yes, then his forthrightness was effective, noble and laudable. If not, then his forthrightness was ineffective and, um, therefore inadvisable?

          No, not yet. I’ve had his number for about a week and a half. I like him as a person very much. I get a kick out of him, but I’m on the fence about hooking up with him, and, in the past, when I’ve had those kinds of feelings to start out with, once I get in the room with the person, I always think: Let’s move this along. I’m not at my best when I half want to be there.  🙂   But a direct proposition is always appreciated. Very few men do it. Usually they throw out a lot of half-hearted flirtations, and if you throw it back at them, they look at you like a deer in the headlights. DON’T throw it out there if you aren’t serious.

        23. SparklingEmerald

          Somewhere in this thread : this back and forth between E the O and Chance . . .

          _________________________________

          “From teens through mid-20’s, it was mostly due to girls/women who were keeping guys in their attention web for validation even though they weren’t interested sexually or romantically

          Ah, that is a selfish thing to do, but I’ve seen men do something similar: Keep giving a woman just enough attention so she thinks he’s interested but he really isn’t. He’s keeping her on standby just in case.

          _____________________________

          Yes, in some cases “selfish women ” and “selfish men” deliberately string members of the opposite sex along for sex or validation. In both cases, they throw the other a crumb, to keep them coming back for more . . .

          However, more often than not, it is a woman playing “the cool girl” chasing a guy and offering her sex up freely while claiming she is “cool” with it, in the hopes that he will one day realize just how awesome she is, and give her more.  Most men aren’t going to turn down NSA sex when it is offered up freely, and if the girl says she is “cool” with it, hey, you can’t expect a man to decipher that she isn’t, it would be in his interest to do so.

          Or the guy is a whiney “nice guy” who orbits around a girl who never overtly showed a sexual or romantic interest in him.  He thinks the fact that she never directly told him to buzz off, means he has a chance.  So he just so happens to show up where she is, follows her around like a puppy, and the fact that she might engage in some friendly convo with him instead of telling him to go away,  to him, means he has a chance with her.  But the truth is, she’s just not comfortable telling him to go away, because she doesn’t want to be mean, and since this “nice guy” never directly asks her for a date, or tells her that he likes her romantically, she can’t really tell him that she’s not into him in “that way”.  Since she’s getting a vibe that he’s orbiting, hoping for something more, she may even make up a “boyfriend” to drop into the conversation, hoping he’ll get the hint.  Usually instead of getting a clue, he’ll fantasize that this guy is some sort of a-hole, and hence, the whole whining fest of “She doesn’t like me because I’m a nice guy, she’d rather be with that a-hole”.

          When my girlfriends tried to be the “cool girl” with a guy, I wouldn’t warn them about the guy.  I’d try to get them to introspect about what they REALLY want, and to drop the “cool girl” act.  (and it was ALWAYS an act with the handful of gf’s that would tell me about some “cool girl” NSA affair they were having.)  In fact, one of my GFs told me when she was completely single, that she was tired of “just sex” and wanted a real relationship.  A few months later she met a guy and told me she really like him.  They started seeing each other, and it looked like things were progressing, so I excitedly asked her how it was going with “Joe”.  She gave me a withering look and said “We aren’t attaching any labels to anything”.  I actually wanted to smack her, but I just said “Oh, OK, I thought you told were tired of “just sex” and wanted a real relationship”.  She then back peddled a bit, and said something along the lines of she still did, but things were fine like this “for now”.  That non-relationship actually went on for about 2 years, but it was always at arms length, and never really “labeled”.  It ended up being a source of much angst for her.   I didn’t like to see her so blue and angst ridden, but since she accepted that situation, in direct contrast to what she REALLY wanted, it was hard to have a whole lot of sympathy for her.  Thankfully, after that “non-relationship” ended, she learned from that, and refused to be in an FWB situation again.

          I think whiney nice guys who orbit girls and can’t take a hint, need a kick in the pants about THEIR behavior, not some “warning” about the girl who just hasn’t directly told him to buzz off.  A girl can’t put a guy in the “friend zone” or “keep a guy in her attention web” without his consent.  He is there of his own volition, and he usually put himself in that “zone” or “web” to begin with.

          “Nice guys” usually aren’t that nice, and “cool girls” usually aren’t cool with FWB, NSA, or whatever else you want to call those booty call “non-relationships”.

        24. KK

          chance,

          Ah, I get it… you were just doing a little chest banging about what you wish you could do. In truth, you’d just pay your child support, take your every other weekend visit (or not), and endlessly complain about it to anyone who would listen.

           

        25. KK

          Shaukat,

          The difference is in the situations you brought up, there isn’t any deception involved. If a woman TELLS a guy she wants to be his friend and he SAYS he’s okay with that, how is she deceiving him??? The equivalent would be a guy clearly saying that he was not interested in a relationship. He’s operating under the assumption that she accepted what he said at face value and if she continues to see him and sleep with him, it is on her if she becomes upset with the outcome.

        26. Emily, the original

          Sparkling Emerald,

          Yes, in some cases “selfish women ” and “selfish men” deliberately string members of the opposite sex along for sex or validation. In both cases, they throw the other a crumb, to keep them coming back for more . . .

          Actually, the three of us did go back and forth on another post about this very topic, which is why I didn’t elaborate on it. It was a big debate about whether the non-committal man and the not-interested girl had the responsibility to nip things in the bud because they were hurting the other person. Although I do think there’s a big difference between sleeping with someone non-committally who you know has feelings for you and having friendly chit chat with a man you know likes you but you don’t tell him to buzz off. I think the problem with the “just friends” goes a bit deeper, as in the woman calls and hangs out with the guy friend, goes to him for advice about other guys she likes, but knows the guy friend is really into her. She doesn’t end the friendship because she’s getting something out of it. Yes, that’s selfish.

           

          In fact, one of my GFs told me when she was completely single, that she was tired of “just sex” and wanted a real relationship.  A few months later she met a guy and told me she really like him.  They started seeing each other, and it looked like things were progressing, so I excitedly asked her how it was going with “Joe”.  She gave me a withering look and said “We aren’t attaching any labels to anything”.

          I’m sure every woman has been in one of these situations. The problem is that (and I’m making a big generalization here) it’s hard to find someone who is confident enough to show interest but not overdo it. It’s either an avoidant or an anxious approach, neither of which is appealing.

        27. Tom10

          @ Emily, the original
          No, not yet. I’ve had his number for about a week and a half. I like him as a person very much. I get a kick out of him, but I’m on the fence about hooking up with him…”
           
          Lol. You’ve pretty much out-lined why making a direct proposition is a BAD idea for guys; it doesn’t work (i.e. you didn’t hook up with him)!
           
          If you are advising guys to make a direct proposition you have to illustrate how this will be a successful strategy (admittedly you haven’t ruled out hooking up with him at some point).
           
          “But a direct proposition is always appreciated. Very few men do it.”
           
          Yes, I can see how you would appreciate it (i.e. you know his intentions as he has laid his cards out on the table), however, he didn’t hook up, therefore, other guys will note that as a poor strategy.
           
          So, if a guy’s primary objective is to hook up (i.e. most men’s) then my inevitable conclusion is that the direct approach is an ineffective strategy: all it does is shows you his cards (i.e. it hands his power over to you). And while you’ll appreciate this candidness the guy who doesn’t hook-up won’t.

        28. Emily, the original

          Tom10,

          Yes, I can see how you would appreciate it (i.e. you know his intentions as he has laid his cards out on the table), however, he didn’t hook up, therefore, other guys will note that as a poor strategy.

          I don’t agree. You won’t know until you ask. If I had been more attracted to him, I would have said yes. If neither party asks, nothing ever happens. (And, no, it doesn’t always have to be the man who asks. If I was totally ga ga over this guy, I would have asked myself.)

        29. Chance

          kk, you’re still batting .000…… I would still pay every cent it costs to raise the child and I would be present in the child’s life every day.  I would just pay the child support on top of that.

        30. Chance

          SE, you’re right: nice guys and cool girls are being manipulative (mostly, manipulating themselves because I think they believe their own BS most of the time).  However, the other party is responsible, too, and it is worth warning your friend about when you see it going on, and no one said that we don’t give our friends a kick in the ass in the process.

           

          Emily, the reason you think it’s a big difference is because it is more painful for women to be in a FWB situation without the emotional connection than it is for men.  For men, it is more painful to be in a situation where they are in an emotionally connected relationship without the sexual intimacy than it is for women.  Personally, I can’t relate to why a FWB situation would be painful because I’m a man, but I try to empathize with women in this regard and act accordingly.  Not trying to harsh on you or anything.  Just wanted to emphasize the differences.

        31. Emily, the original

          Chance,

          Emily, the reason you think it’s a big difference is because it is more painful for women to be in a FWB situation without the emotional connection than it is for men.  For men, it is more painful to be in a situation where they are in an emotionally connected relationship without the sexual intimacy than it is for women.

          You didn’t read my comments carefully enough. Yes, I can see why a guy being in the friendzone with a woman who is a CLOSE FRIEND, who hangs out with him and shares herself emotionally with him but doesn’t want to sleep with him, would be painful. The example Sparkling Emerald used was a “nice” guy who orbits a woman. To me, that implies he bumps into her at parties or at bars. She will be polite and engage in chit chat conversation with him but won’t tell him to buzz off. There’s a big difference between your example and Sparkling Emerald’s.

        32. KK

          So you’ve changed your tune, Chance. Now you’re saying you would not only pay child support but also pay whatever it takes to take care of that child on top of that and be present everyday. That’s not what you originally stated. You do realize, however, that you would only have 50% custody at best, or more likely every other weekend and alternate holidays though, right? So, it may not be possible to be present every day unless the mother is okay with that.

        33. Chance

          @ Emily – fair enough🙂

           

          @Kk – no, I haven’t changed my tune.  I said in my original comment that I would never let a child go unsupported, and I said that I have fantasized about not paying child support.  I never said that I actually wouldn’t pay child support.  Give up on this obsession…. I suspect the readers have lost brain cells from our exchange.  You’re never going to find an instance of where I contradicted myself on this so just let it go.

        34. Tom10

          @ Emily, the original
          “You won’t know until you ask. If I had been more attracted to him, I would have said yes”
           
          Ah I see – so the direct approach will work for the attractive guys. Which is convenient for you and the good-looking guys I guess. But what are the not-so-good-looking-guys supposed to do? Keep making direct approaches and getting rebuffed until some woman says yes – a woman he might not be actually be attracted to himself?
           
          But not many people will be able to take multiple rejections (which, let’s face it, it is) like that and keep going without suffering a blow to their self-esteem; which is why it makes sense for them to switch to a more indirect strategy. I.e. a strategy which offers them some protection for their emotional well-being/ego, yet also allows room to generate some success.
           
          That said, I’m not actually against the direct approach per-se, I just think it needs some nuance in practice. A balancing act between assertive enough to bring success, yet guarded enough to handle the rejection.
           
          Can you see now why men don’t often say straight up that they’re just looking to hook-up?

        35. Emily, the original

          Tom10

          Which is convenient for you and the good-looking guys I guess.Where did I say this guy was good-looking? Aesthetically speaking, he isn’t, but that’s not why I’m not attracted to him. For me, “attractive” and “attracted to,” while not mutually exclusive, run parallel instead of intersect. I am by no means always attracted to the hottest guy in the room. This is a concept we’ve debated before, so I won’t try to explain it again. Suffice it to say that with him, I’m just not feeling it. But what are the not-so-good-looking-guys supposed to do? Keep making direct approaches and getting rebuffed until some woman says yes – a woman he might not be actually be attracted to himself?Why on earth would you proposition a woman you weren’t attracted to? I get it. I’ve propositioned men who have said no. It sucks. It feels like you just jumped over a cliff naked while the other person stands on the edge and laughs.
          That said, I’m not actually against the direct approach per-se, I just think it needs some nuance in practice. A balancing act between assertive enough to bring success, yet guarded enough to handle the rejection.

          Again, I don’t agree. With a hookup, you are looking for one thing: HOT SEX. A man’s approach tells me everything. If it’s indirect and flim-flammy … do you get where I’m going here?

        36. KK

          Oh please, Chance. There wouldn’t even be an exchange if you had kept your word.

        37. KK

          What SE & others have described about the male orbiter desperately hoping to be MORE than friends is most common, there is another scenario I’ve seen as well. A male colleague had said that the hot chick he asked out recently wanted to be “just friends”. The other guys were giving him a hard time and he told them how he was happy about it because he intended to become friends and hopefully have sex with her in a weak moment. He went on to brag about how this strategy has worked well many times. All he has to do is earn her trust, make a move at the right time, and successfuly turn just friends into friends with benefits.

        38. Tom10

          @ Emily, the original
          “Where did I say this guy was good-looking? Aesthetically speaking, he isn’t, but that’s not why I’m not attracted to him. For me, “attractive” and “attracted to,” while not mutually exclusive, run parallel instead of intersect.”
           
          Okay, this has to be a male/female thing. I don’t “get” how you can be attracted to someone who isn’t attractive, but you’ve explained it before so I’ll accept your premise.
           
          “Why on earth would you proposition a woman you weren’t attracted to?”
           
          Well if a guy (such as your buddy Mr. Magoo perhaps) is always rejected by the women he’s attracted to he might feel he’s no choice other than to turn to women he’s not attracted to: i.e. any hole’s a goal and all that (ewww I know, but that’s how some men function).
           
          “With a hookup, you are looking for one thing: HOT SEX. A man’s approach tells me everything. If it’s indirect and flim-flammy … do you get where I’m going here?”
           
          Not really. You said that you rejected your colleague’s proposition because you weren’t attracted to him. Therefore, no matter how assertive or direct his approach was it still wouldn’t have mattered, as you weren’t attracted to him anyway.
           
          Therefore, by being indirect and flim-flammy he can back-out without losing face once he sees that you’re not up for it.
           
          I’m still to be convinced that asking a woman directly for a hook-up has any realistic chance of success…
           
          😉

        39. Emily, the original

          Tom10

          I don’t “get” how you can be attracted to someone who isn’t attractive

          I didn’t say the men I was attracted to were unattractive, but that attraction isn’t solely based on someone’s level of attractiveness. I have been wildly attracted to 6s (to use your number terminology) and moderately attracted to 10s. On the surface, it makes no sense, but attraction is about an energy between two people. It’s why you can’t tell you’re attracted to someone until you meet in person. All you can tell from a photo is if the person is aesthetically appealing.

          Well if a guy (such as your buddy Mr. Magoo perhaps) is always rejected by the women he’s attracted to he might feel he’s no choice other than to turn to women he’s not attracted to: i.e. any hole’s a goal and all that (ewww I know, but that’s how some men function).

          Mr. Magoo likes every woman, so he’ll never have an issue with finding women to have sex with. I guess other men can do what they need to do.

          Not really. You said that you rejected your colleague’s proposition because you weren’t attracted to him. Therefore, no matter how assertive or direct his approach was it still wouldn’t have mattered, as you weren’t attracted to him anyway.

          Yes, but what is a woman to do? Wear a post-it note on her forehead alerting you to her level of interest? You won’t really know until you ask. And what I meant was … a flim-flammy approach can mean a less than dazzling sexual interlude. It doesn’t bode well for the heat of it.

          Therefore, by being indirect and flim-flammy he can back-out without losing face once he sees that you’re not up for it.

          He made a pass; I will probably end not calling him, but he didn’t lose face. We’re still friends and we still talk. It’s not something he keeps score of. I’m sure there are other women he’s talking to.

        40. Shaukat

          I’m still to be convinced that asking a woman directly for a hook-up has any realistic chance of success…

          Right, and I see why it’s even necessary. If you’re at a bar having a few drinks and things are going well, saying something like ‘let’s grab another drink at my place’ would suffice, and it’s still pretty direct. What’s the point in saying something like ‘let’s fuck?’

          @KK,

          Guys who find themselves in the orbit FZ are rarely told directly by the woman that the relationship will never go beyond friendship. There are often mixed signals going on. My point was that if a guy sees a woman once a week for drinks and doesn’t otherwise act like he wants a relationship, he is not required to directly state that he only wants NSA sex. You seem to think that the default assumption when dating should be that each party is looking for an LTR unless otherwise stated. I don’t think that should be assumed.

        41. Emily, the original

          Shaukat,

          If you’re at a bar having a few drinks and things are going well, saying something like ‘let’s grab another drink at my place’ would suffice, and it’s still pretty direct. What’s the point in saying something like ‘let’s fuck?’

          Agreed. There’s no need to say, “Let’s fuck.” “Let’s grab another drink at my place” is perfectly fine and direct. No ambiguity there.

          Here’s what’s not: Some guy telling me who else at work he hooked up with. (It’s a very big place.) “We talked for a while and she just said to me one day, ‘It’s time.’ We just did it once.”   Uh … ok. Then he asked me if I pick people up when I go out. Is he writing an article or seeing if I’m in to casual sex? I’m not sure, but this is what I mean by flim-flammy.

        42. Tom10

          @ Emily, the original
          “I have been wildly attracted to 6s (to use your number terminology) and moderately attracted to 10s”
           
          Ha it’s not “my” number terminology. The ratings system is like the English language, the Internet, existentialism and other great schools of Philosophical thought; a global resource bestowed on us by our predecessors for the benefit of us all. Lol. 😉
           
          “what is a woman to do? Wear a post-it note on her forehead alerting you to her level of interest?”
           
          Ideally yes, lol, that’d be great. Then guys could just approach all the women with the appropriate post-it note on her forehead. 🙂
           
          Ah I guess this is what the dating-game is all about Emil: guys subtly trying to make passes with some chance of success and minimum amount of rejections, and women trying to subtly attract men, the right men that is.
           
          “He made a pass; I will probably end not calling him, but he didn’t lose face.” 
           
          Well he still took a rejection – no matter how kindly you worded it. Thankfully most guys realize that’s how the game works for us and we just roll with it.
           
          @ Shaukat
          “You seem to think that the default assumption when dating should be that each party is looking for an LTR unless otherwise stated. I don’t think that should be assumed.”
           
          Bingo.
           
          I don’t know why women just assume that guys are looking for just sex unless otherwise stated. That way they won’t get upset when it subsequently transpires that the guy they’ve been sleeping with for 3 months was never open to the idea of a relationship from day 1.

        43. Tom10

          *I don’t know why women DON’T just assume that guys are looking for just sex unless otherwise stated.

        44. Emily, the original

          Tom10,

          guys subtly trying to make passes with some chance of success and minimum amount of rejections,

          If she’s a bit bold, likes the game and/or is really into you, she’ll make a pass at you herself. Has that never happened?

          and women trying to subtly attract men, the right men that is.

          Let me know how to do that. 🙂  Women spend a lot of their time trying to extract themselves from the attentions of the wrong men.

        45. Tom10

          @ Emily, the original
          “If she’s a bit bold, likes the game and/or is really into you, she’ll make a pass at you herself. Has that never happened?”
           
          Yes, plenty of times. But men face the same dilemma: only the women we don’t want, or averagely attractive women will make at us pass first. Then the question becomes, do we take the sex on offer, or do we just politely reject her?
           
          The most attractive women make us work for it. 🙁
           
          “Women spend a lot of their time trying to extract themselves from the attentions of the wrong men.”
           
          Lol. I guess that’s inevitable really. All you can do is display your “not-in-a-million-years-would-a-guy-like-you-have-a-chance-with-a-girl-like-me” stony-face and hopefully he’ll get the message. Lol.

        46. SparklingEmerald

          KK said somewhere in this sub-thread

          A male colleague had said that the hot chick he asked out recently wanted to be “just friends”. The other guys were giving him a hard time and he told them how he was happy about it because he intended to become friends and hopefully have sex with her in a weak moment.

          And THIS is PRECISELY why the whole whiney “You just reject me because I’m ‘nice’ ” line is a load of BS.  That isn’t nice at all, it’s sneaky and manipulative.  This is why I’ve never been a fan of being “friends” with men that didn’t work out.  The “friendship” carrot is just them angling for sex, and most women know that.

        47. Emily, the original

          Tom10,

          All you can do is display your “not-in-a-million-years-would-a-guy-like-you-have-a-chance-with-a-girl-like-me” stony-face and hopefully he’ll get the message.

          Ah but there is a segment of your population that never seems to get that message, no matter how rude, dismissive or bitchy a woman is. They’re likes rats in a maze scurrying for an opening! You can’t even so much as gaze in their direction or they think you are trying to talk with them. Granted, these are the extreme creepers and their numbers are small, but there are so irritating and make women feel so uncomfortable, they are hard to forget.

    4. 9.5
      KK

      “This issue is too emotionally fraught to be discussed rationally”.

      I don’t believe that’s the case, Jeremy. It’s true that there are certain individuals who are unable to discuss these types of issues rationally because of their own biases, but there are also people that are more than willing to keep an open mind and discuss possible solutions. The problem, as I see it, is there aren’t any quick and easy solutions.

      If men feel they are being treated unfairly by being held financially responsible for an unwanted child birth, what do you propose is fair for everyone involved?

      It appears that some men are very angry with women, with the government for imposing unwanted responsibilities on them, but if these same men can’t come up with any alternative solutions, isn’t all this anger being misdirected?

       

    5. 9.6
      Yet Another Guy

      @Jeremy

      I want to thank you for putting what most men believe into words so eloquently.  I recently had a discussion about sex with a woman I dated.  She wanted to know how many sexual partners I have had in my lifetime.  I gave her the number of women with whom I have had sexual intercourse before we somehow transitioned to the topic of oral sex, which more than quadrupled my already high partner count in her eyes.  She was completely blown away to discover that I do not consider women with whom I have only had oral sex to be sexual partners (I guess that I have something in common with Bill Clinton 🙂 ).  To her, oral sex only comes after sexual intercourse because she considers it to be the more intimate of the two acts.  However, as a guy,  I saw oral sex as a way to prevent pregnancy up until I had a vasectomy; therefore, it has always been a step leading up to sexual intercourse.  She still cannot wrap her head the fact that I consider sexual intercourse to be the more intimate of the two acts because it means that a guy is signing up for the possibility of being on the hook for eighteen-plus years.

  10. 10
    Just saying

    Stacy2, what you said about men being held responsible for “wrongful” death getting a woman pregnant is just stupid. To be held responsible for wrongful death, two conditions must be present 1) that the man is fully in control of circumstances leading to an event 2) the event has a very high likelihood of causing death or serious injury. I think getting a woman pregnant fails test 2) and it is debatable whether or not condition 1) exists.

    However, I DO agree with your position, if not the way you argued it. One way to justify holding men accountable for child support is this analogy:

    Say a man who is clearly drunk gets into a car with a woman. An accident occurs and the woman becomes a paraplegic. She then sues the man for negligence and financial support. Now under the Westminster system of torts, he is liable FULLY for her injuries and for ALL of her financial losses arising from her injury. You may say this is unfair because the woman contributed equally to her injury by agreeing to go into his car when she knew he was drunk. You may say she is liable for 50% of her losses, but this is not how the law works.

    Luckily for men, child support does not work that way. A man is only liable for 50% of the care of his child. He is not liable for 100%, nor is he liable for the care of the child’s mother. This would be the situation if the couple were not married nor co-habiting. This seems eminently fair to me.

    Besides, men do not end up on the financial hook in most cases anyway. Well not in 2 out of the 3 scenarios. Scenario 1 is a baby momma who has no career prospects and sees no future other than being on the public purse as a single mother. The baby daddy is likely to be a loser like she is so he is not ending up supporting the child anyway.

    Scenario 2 is a baby momma who would have aborted children while in the prime of her high earning years as a career woman, but now faces the closing of her fertility window. She then decides to go it alone with enough resources to support herself and her child. She probably does not want the baby daddy’s money anyway since she probably does not want his interference in the way she raises her child.

    Now Scenario 3 is the one male commentors here (like Chance) seem to have their beef about. This covers the gold digging baby momma who see their children with rich men as their meal tickets.  This issue really isn’t one about child support per se, but rather the linking of child support to a man’s ability to pay. I totally agree that there should be law reform on this issue.

    I can understand legislation mandating men’s personal relationship with their children, but in reality you cannot enforce this if either party does not want a personal relationship. You can’t force a man to love and spend time with his children, any  more than you can force children to love and spend time with their father.

     

     

     

     

    1. 10.1
      Stacy2

      To be held responsible for wrongful death, two conditions must be present 

      Those are not the elements of a(civil) wrongful death claim. There’re 3 elements to the wrongful death claim: duty of care, breach of duty of care and causation. It could also be construed as a negligence claim (duty, breach, causation, damages), but again duty of care would be an issue. Establishing duty of care would be most difficult here, but it’s an argument that can be made, especially when there’s deception involved (say a guy claims to be sterile but is not).

      But of course, i understand how absurd this sounds and this is exactly my point. This is reductio ad absurdum. There can never be equalization of reproductive risks between men and women, and any attempts to equalize them will lead to allowing absurd outcomes such as these.

      1. 10.1.1
        Robert

        And what about women who get deliberately pregnant and proceed to suck the life out of a man for 18-21 years?

    2. 10.2
      Robert

      This isn’t Westminster. In America child support is based upon parenting time. If it’s a 60-40 split with the mother having the child 60% of the time, the father pays 60% of the child support. If one parent has 100% parenting time, the other pays 100% of child support.

  11. 11
    Stacy2

    Btw, since when is it a wide spread consensus that abortion is always an option? I am totally incensed by this notion. Abortion is a serious, invasive surgical procedure with dangerous side effects. You can die from it. You can become infertile. Some people will have moral objections. It’s not like popping a pill problem solved. For many women this is not at all an option that men think that it is, and unlike these men she will actually have to carry the baby to term and deal with child rearing. Personally I have a nuanced pro-life position (as in – i would never have an abortion myself but i think they should be legal) and I always made it very clear to men – if you’re knocking me up, you’re becoming a daddy, that’s the deal, “do you understand your rights as I’ve read them to you?” lol. Never stopped anybody…

    1. 11.1
      Katie

      Abortion is a serious, invasive surgical procedure with dangerous side effects. You can die from it.

      The risks of carrying the birthing the child is 14X higher. So this is null.

      It’s not like popping a pill problem solved.

      Yes it is. Medical abortion is literally that. Except two pills.

       

      1. 11.2.1
        Stacy2

        Katie, please read your own link. There’re 13 studies cited on the same page that found the exact opposite (that abortion carries higher risk than pregnancy).

        Lastly, medical abortion is limited to 49 days since last cycle. Considering the cycle is 30 days, you would literally need to catch the pregnancy  within a week and move fast to decide and make all arrangements to have it. And, it is still not like “popping a pill” so please don’t mislead people. It has serious effects on your body, it practically causes you to slowly miscarry over the course of couple of weeks, and may still require surgical after in case the abortion was only partial. Gross.

        1. Katie

          Katie, please read your own link.

          I did. Quoting from my link …

          “The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions.”

          There’re 13 studies cited on the same page that found the exact opposite (that abortion carries higher risk than pregnancy).

          And of those I challenge you to find ONE that is modern and scientifically and logically valid and supports your stance – That legal abortions cause more maternal deaths than childbirth.

        2. Stacy2

          And of those I challenge you to find ONE that is modern and scientifically and logically valid and supports your stance 

          Oh count me out. You clearly have an agenda and no amount of quoting or debating is going to change that. I am not interested. You can choose to believe the headline study, or the one that was conducted over much longer period of time (7 years) on a much larger pool of participants just 7 years prior – but of course since it reached an opposite conclusion it has to be “not scientifically valid” and “not modern” (rolling my eyes).

          The point though is that some men here seem to believe that a woman can simply wish away her pregnancy with no real long term health risks associated with it, but won’t because women are out to get them and to trap them with a baby they didn’t want (but had sex anyway). That is simply not the case, and to start off with this premise is offensive.

        3. Katie

          Oh count me out. You clearly have an agenda and no amount of quoting or debating is going to change that.

          No agenda. I just requested evidence to support your statement.

          You can choose to believe the headline study, or the one that was conducted over much longer period of time (7 years) on a much larger pool of participants just 7 years prior – but of course since it reached an opposite conclusion it has to be “not scientifically valid” and “not modern” (rolling my eyes).

          Oh. The article that I specifically requested from you, and you claim supports your evidence but for mysterious reasons only known to you, you refuse to post a link?

          You have nothing, is what I infer.

        4. Katie

          Hi KK.

          Sadly I can’t view that article at this time. Blocked at work 🙁 Advocacy group website thingy.

          If you see the actual study that it references, could you post that?

          Thank you!!!

        5. KK

          Hi Katie,

          Multiple studies are referenced.

          Just check it out when you can.

        6. Stacy2

          The article that I specifically requested from you, and you claim supports your evidence but for mysterious reasons only known to you, you refuse to post a link?

          What are you even talking about? The links are on the same page as your study. A good Samaritan there has already written a rebuttal and substantiated it with the total of 13 links on valid scientific studies. You can read that all if you just bother to click “expand” at the bottom of the page.

        7. Katie

          KK, found it.

          Finnish study, 1987-1994.

          This study is ugly mess of misused data. For one thing, their headline (4X!!!) comes from numbers that don’t account for the number of events, or even actual cause of death.

          100 women died within a year of having an abortion. 40 from having babies.

          Let me state that again.

          100 women died within a year of having an abortion. 40 from having babies.

          And what’s worse -The numbers are not standardized to number of events. They are just gross numbers. MORE ABORTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT THAT BIRTHS.

          All this study says is that Finnish women have lots of abortions. More abortions than they make babies.

          So, no. This study is not evidence.

           

        8. Katie

          What are you even talking about? The links are on the same page as your study. A good Samaritan there has already written a rebuttal and substantiated it with the total of 13 links on valid scientific studies. You can read that all if you just bother to click “expand” at the bottom of the page.

          I still infer you have nothing.

          I  reviewed a few and they were either not relevant or not valid.

          So if I’m missing something here please enlighten me. Let me remind you that I literally asked for ONE article that you consider valid.

        9. KK

          Katie,

          Do you believe that a pregnant woman should ever, under any circumstances be FORCED to abort her child?

          Do you believe that for some women it is simply not an option?

          The reasons shouldn’t even come into play here. However, if that IS a reason some women give for not choosing abortion, they’re not incorrect. It doesn’t matter what the statistics are in relation to carrying a child to full term birth. Is there ANY risk? If so, that’s all that matters. The mere possibility of complications, serious health issues, or death satisfies the requirements to call it a risk.

        10. Katie

          Do you believe that a pregnant woman should ever, under any circumstances be FORCED to abort her child?

          Can’t think of any circumstance I would support that, no.

          Do you believe that for some women it is simply not an option?

          It’s always an option, but many women choose not to use that option. Everywhere it’s legal at least, which is almost everywhere.

          The reasons shouldn’t even come into play here. However, if that IS a reason some women give for not choosing abortion, they’re not incorrect.

          If the woman is trying to lower her chances of dying by choosing childbirth over abortion then she is wrong. Her information or her reasoning is wrong or illogical.

          It doesn’t matter what the statistics are in relation to carrying a child to full term birth. Is there ANY risk? If so, that’s all that matters.

          No. If you’re pregnant you have two options. Birth or abort. If the only things being considered are medical safety risk assessment then the only logical choice is abortion.

          But that’s not why people choose to carry the pregnancy to term. They are accepting more risk healthwise, which many people are okay with.

          But anyone deluding themselves or others into thinking it’s the safer option are wrong.

           

        11. Stacy2

          Katie,

          your statement that it is safer to have an abortion than to give birth is incorrect. Individual risks for any particular woman simply can not be inferred from any of the studies done on large population groups regardless of what those studies concluded. Pregnancy risks are primarily associated with bad prenatal care. So yes, if you are not seeing a doctor during your pregnancy or don’t have access to safe medical facilities to give birth, it  may be safer for you to have an abortion. However if you are receicing good medical care, the abortion of an otherwise healthy pregnancy would be a greater risk.

        12. Katie

          your statement that it is safer to have an abortion than to give birth is incorrect. Individual risks for any particular woman simply can not be inferred from any of the studies done on large population groups regardless of what those studies concluded.

          In the context of this discussion, that is absolutely beside the point.

          That’s the logical equivalent of me saying Studies suggest that a healthy diet and regular exercise lower your chances of developing heart disease.

          And you responding with Not true because in some people it’s genetic.

          Pregnancy risks are primarily associated with bad prenatal care. So yes, if you are not seeing a doctor during your pregnancy or don’t have access to safe medical facilities to give birth, it  may be safer for you to have an abortion. However if you are receicing good medical care, the abortion of an otherwise healthy pregnancy would be a greater risk.

          You have no evidence to support this statement either. This is your assumption that you are trying to pass as fact.

          I’ve already provided evidence that abortion is safer that childbirth.

          Please find a study, modern/legal abortion/logical, that supports the notion that pregnancy/childbirth with good prenatal care causes less maternal deaths than a legal abortion, also with good medical care.

           

        13. Stacy2

          Katie:

          You have no evidence to support this statement either. This is your assumption that you are trying to pass as fact.

          I find your penchant for studies so adorable. It’s too bad you don’t attempt to apply some critical thinking to what you’re reading.

          First, any study conducted in the U.S. on this subject is going to be highly suspect for a number of reasons: (1) extremely poor record keeping, no centralized healthcare (2) significant discrepancy in quality of lifestyle and healthcare between races and classes that will skew the figures. Studies are often done on medicaid recipients (govt records), who are naturally poor and have higher risks of everything (3) how deaths or complications are clasified. In a lot of cases deaths that are related to abortions are simply not classified or counted as such (4) political implication since abortion non-regulation was premised on the idea that the abortions were “safe” (hence no need to regulate). A study that shows they are not actually safe could have socially undesirable legal consequences so nobody is exactly interested in funding one.

          So really, the studies are great but with all of these issues I hope you’re not living your life based on some statistical averages.

          Go to the CDC web site and take a look at the causes of death in pregnant women. Pregnancy itself doesn’t kill anyone, it is not a disease (surprise!), it’s botched deliveries or complications, all of which we are medically able to address at this point (but sometimes fail due to poor quality of healthcare)

          In fact you may be shocked to learn that the #1 cause of death in pregnant women is cardiovascular disease. This is exactly my point here, these stats are just not helpful. If I am a healthy woman with no cardiovascular conditions, a pregnancy is not going to give me a heart attack and my risks of developing a number of similar complications is next to nil.

          But if I go for an abortion, I am running a risk of an infection, sepsis, punctured uterus, torn cervix (especially if i am under the age of 18!), etc., which are completely new and unnecessary set of risks.

          So, do you really think it is a safer option for a young, perfectly healthy woman with access to modern healthcare to go for an abortion than to carry to term? Does that make any sense to you, do you think she is the same odds of dying of a cardio disease as some obese and diabetic medicaid recipient from your study? Would you make YOUR decision based on that? YMMV but I sure wouldn’t.

           

        14. Katie

          Stacy2 “I find your penchant for studies so adorable. “

          I find your refusal to consider evidence and reason simple-minded.

          Stacy2 “It’s too bad you don’t attempt to apply some critical thinking to what you’re reading.”

          Your dependence on baseless insults is juvenile. I’m interpreting it as a defensive reaction, since after all this you still have nothing to support your assertion that pregnancy/childbirth results in fewer maternal mortalities per capital than legal abortions.

          I’m uninterested in your anecdotal ramblings and I’m moving on.

          Have a nice day.

           

        15. GoWiththeFlow

          @Katie,

          Thank you for injecting actual statistics and science into this discussion!  The study “discussed” in the linked anti-abortion website made my head hurt.  And the overly-sensational manipulation of the flawed data gave me heartburn.

          There is an active movement in the medical field to report study statistics in a way that gives accurate and meaningful information about actual patient risk as it relates to the patient.  Statements that were used in the anti-abortion piece are an example of what we need to get rid of, “There is a 240% greater chance of death in women who have abortions versus give birth!!!!!”

          Except, as you pointed out, the raw death numbers were not correlated to overall numbers of both births and abortions that occurred during the study time frame.  And even IF there was a higher incidence of death in the year after abortion vs. birth (which was not shown at all) since both are very rare then actual increase in risk is negligible.

        16. Katie

          GWTF  says “There is an active movement in the medical field to report study statistics in a way that gives accurate and meaningful information about actual patient risk as it relates to the patient.”

          On a scale of one to ten, my support for this movement is one schmillion!

        17. GoWiththeFlow

          Stacy2,

          “I find your penchant for studies so adorable. It’s too bad you don’t attempt to apply some critical thinking to what you’re reading.”

          Personal insult because you can’t refute her? Multiple studies over decade have demonstrated that BOTH childbirth and abortion are very safe, with abortion having less risk than childbirth.

          Your list of reason why medical and demographic based risk studies in the U.S. are “suspect” is a joke.  A visit to the CDC website that you cite will show how extensive, standardized, and routine the data collection is.  And yes, abortion is extremely political, which is why data collection on it is mandated.    And all medical record keeping is extensive.  The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) have extensive regulations regarding medical record keeping (and not just for abortions) with clinics and facilities receiving unannounced site visits where half the time spent of a multiway visit includes random chart reviews to ensure record keeping compliance.

          “Go to the CDC web site and take a look at the causes of death in pregnant women. Pregnancy itself doesn’t kill anyone, it is not a disease (surprise!)”

          Except that all of these reasons on the CDC list are caused by pregnancy itself:  Cardiomyopathy, 11.0%. (PPCM Permpartum Cardiomyopathy), Thrombotic pulmonary embolism, 9.2%., Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, 7.4%, Amniotic fluid embolism, 5.5%.  Add in to these some of the cases under infection or sepsis 11% (chorio-amnionitis after rupture of membranes), and hemorrhage 11.4% (placenta accretia & abruption, uterine atony) which are complications of pregnancy.

          “In fact you may be shocked to learn that the #1 cause of death in pregnant women is cardiovascular disease. This is exactly my point here, these stats are just not helpful. If I am a healthy woman with no cardiovascular conditions, a pregnancy is not going to give me a heart attack and my risks of developing a number of similar complications is next to nil.”

          That’s why these studies are done.  To risk stratify patients.  According to the CDC numbers the overall chances of a woman dying from pregnancy, childbirth, and abortion combined are 17.3 per 100,000 live births o 0.000173%  And those numbers include women with pre-existing disease like coronary artery disease, hypertension, and diabetes.  So your risk is less than that.

      2. 11.2.2
        Shaukat

        There are some convincing studies actually that seem to corroborate the link between abortion and death rates when compared to bringing a child to term. I’ve linked one below. However, a main problem with such studies is that they lump in all deaths resulting from homicide, drug overdose, and suicide under the rubric of ‘deaths resulting from abortion.’ Clearly, this is a dubious method, since such women likely would have engaged in risk taking behavior regardless, and were likely unstable before the abortion.

        I’m a bit of an agnostic on this issue, but I think the weakest argument against the proposition to change the law is the one based on extra taxes. Quite frankly, the women who are predisposed to use pregnancy for gain are mainly extorting the state, not the men who often disappear after the fact. The state doesn’t often have the resources to force these men to pay, and usually they don’t have the wages to garnish anyway. Thus, a change in the law won’t likely be felt in impoverished communities anyway, it will mainly benefit upper middle class families, who wouldn’t qualify for social assistance, and middle/upper middle class men who occasionally stray and end up impregnating a woman.

        To be honest, I actually think the strongest argument Stacy has made is that while abortion is theoretically an option for all women, in reality it may not be. Many women could face enormous pressure from their families to avoid abortion altogether, and so they may feel that they have no choice in the matter unless they want to risk complete social ostracisation.

        As a sociological issue, it would be interesting to see if such a change in the law ends up affecting abortion rates in certain communities. The economist Steven Levitt (‘Freakonomics’) argued that the drop in crime in the late 90s could be attributed to Roe V Wade. If true, perhaps a change in the law, if it encourages higher abortion rates, could have an impact on future crime.

        http://www.medscimonit.com/abstract/index/idArt/883338

         

        1. KK

          “To be honest, I actually think the strongest argument Stacy has made is that while abortion is theoretically an option for all women, in reality it may not be”.

          Hi Shaukat. I agree.

          I also wanted to note that there is a direct link between post abortive women and severe depression. There have been many studies done on this. There have also been articles by psychologists stating that the post abortive women they’ve treated for depression have expressed sincere regret over their choice and the inability to move forward. For some women, it’s a very traumatic experience.

        2. Jeremy

          KK and Shaukat, I agree too.  That’s why I’m not eager to make suggestions to how the law should be changed.  And I’m aware of the correlation between abortion and depression later in life.  I wonder about the correlation between depression and being forced to pay child support for unwanted pregnancies.  I’ve not seen studies on the matter.  I wonder why none have been done…….could it be that no one cares what happens to men paying child support because according to the status quo they are only manning up? So if they get depressed by being coerced, it’s only due to their own immaturity, right?

           

          I think that ultimately there is a comparison to be made between this issue and how rape is prosecuted (big jump, but bear with me).  We all know that too many rapists get off Scott-free because of the burden of proof – it is just really difficult to prove rape in court in so many situations.  Some people have suggested changing the law – reducing the burden of proof, believing the victim as the default.  But we can’t do that because eliminating the “innocent until proven guilty” rule for one crime opens a flood-gate that we don’t want open.  It skews fairness in the opposite direction and may well make matters worse.  So we admit the unfairness of the situation and we continue to search for fair ways to improve things.  We DON”T assert that things are fair as they are.  We DON’T tell people they shouldn’t be angry.  We DO encourage education about consent and teach women ways to protect themselves and reduce risk.  The same very much applies to this issue and how it should be dealt with IMHO.

        3. Chance

          Hi Jeremy, I might not be following correctly, but are you saying that men should still probably be forced to pay for a child they didn’t want because of risks associated with abortion?  If that’s correct, what are your thoughts about the fact that a woman in this situation doesn’t need to have an abortion to relieve herself of the responsibilities associated with raising a child?

        4. KK

          Jeremy,
          I don’t know of any studies that have been done on that either. Nor do I know of any studies that show a correlation between depression and single mothers who are going it alone without financial help from the fathers. So I don’t think this is a gender issue. If you want to compare apples to apples though, there have also been studies on the correlation between depression and post abortive fathers.
          Maybe those studies are politically motivated due to the high level of controversy. Maybe not. I did find something interesting, though. Before Roe V Wade in 1973, the pro life movement was highly supported by liberals. I was surprised to learn this.

        5. KK

          “If that’s correct, what are your thoughts about the fact that a woman in this situation doesn’t need to have an abortion to relieve herself of the responsibilities associated with raising a child”?

          Chance,

          You either lack imagination and empathy or have never personally experienced a no-win situation.

          The only other way to relieve herself would be through adoption.

          Imagine for a moment a young woman who finds out she’s pregnant. She didn’t WANT to become pregnant. She’s made a mistake. An irreversible mistake. She has some serious decisions to face. If she is pro life, abortion is out of the question. Some women are perfectly capable of giving a child up for adoption. Others aren’t.

          So she decides to have the child on her own. She’s scared to death. She’s unsure if she’s going to be enough for this child. She knows the dreams and plans she had for herself are suddenly a thing of the past. She knows that the odds of eventually marrying a great guy have just greatly decreased. She knows she’s going to face criticism and be stigmatized, but she’s brave enough to do what she feels in her own heart is the right thing to do.

          This is NOT someone who is trying to use “the system” to make someone else’s life miserable. She’s simply a young woman who made a mistake and has decided to take responsibility for it and make the most of it.

        6. Jeremy

          Hi Chance.  No, that isn’t exactly what I meant.  I meant that men should probably continue being forced to pay because it is for the benefit of the child, not for anything to do with the mother.  I agreed that not all women perceive themselves as being able to abort….but hey, not all men would see themselves as morally or religiously able to abdicate responsibility even if it were legal.

           

          I am the father of 4 children.  I’ve done my very best to provide them with love, guidance, and everything they need – no one had to coerce me.  If I ever discovered that there was a child out there that shared half my DNA and was struggling, I could not live with myself if I did not help.  I’m not sure I should be allowed not to help if my child needed help.  I would 100% be justified in being angry at the mother if fraud was involved, if she hid the child from me, if she had the child without my consent, etc.  But the child him/herself…..they are innocent.  They are mine.  They need help. So, as their father, I should assist them.

           

          I believe that consent to parenthood is as important as consent to sex.  I believe that women who trap men into parenthood without their consent are doing something very immoral, and that there should probably be consequences to the mother for doing so.  BUt not to the child.

        7. Chance

          Hi Jeremy, good comment.  I would agree with that.  In truth, I could never let a child go without fully supporting him/her, either, in spite of what a horrendous act the mother would be committing by forcing me to be a father against my will.  In fact, my support of this child would be to protect him/her from such an act of selfishness on the part of the mother.  I am still internally deliberating whether a woman who would do this is even worthy of the air we share.  Harsh language, I know, but to your point, what these women are doing is not only detrimental to the father, but it is almost always detrimental to the child as well.

           

          I have fantasized about what I would do if I ever found myself in this situation.  I would be all in on raising and supporting this child, but it would be on my own terms.  I make and have enough money to give children a much, much better life than they would have if the mother received a child support check alone.  Private prep school, college fund to go any university – public or private – of his/her choice, medical school, whatever… all paid for.  I would pay 100% of the costs to raise that child.  Every bite that child took, I would be paying for that food.  It would be a full court press as I would be present every day of that child’s life… I would take him/her to school, all the extra-curriculars, you name it.

           

          I would wear the same clothes for 20 years…. no “Mommy’s Day Out” meetups for me.  The child would be better off, many times over, than he/she would ever be if the mother would be receiving child support.  The catch:  the mother cannot ever come after me for child support.  If she ever did, I would quit my job and go to jail, and find some way to legally (if there is a way) protect my assets in a way that they would be payable to my child upon his/her 18th birthday.  The choice belongs to the mother:  either allow me to provide the child with a better childhood than she could ever imagine, or pursue child support and get nothing.

           

          Well, I’m just about worked up enough now that I almost want some woman to take me for a ride…

        8. KK

          Chance said,

          “In truth, I could never let a child go without fully supporting him/her, either, in spite of what a horrendous act the mother would be committing by forcing me to be a father against my will”.

          AND

          “The catch:  the mother cannot ever come after me for child support.  If she ever did, I would quit my job and go to jail…”

          These two statements contradict one another. Moving on…

          If someone commits fraud by intentionally becoming pregnant with the intention of using an innocent child as a pawn, said person would never succumb to another’s demands. That’s not how con artists work.

        9. KK

          “Well, I’m just about worked up enough now that I almost want some woman to take me for a ride…”
          Really? That’s what you want? You have so much hate inside you that you want to attempt to seek revenge against some imaginary woman and ultimately your own innocent child?? WOW.

        10. Jeremy

          KK, I think that the issue of depression in post-abortive fathers is beside the point, since whatever the man feels should not affect the legality of the woman’s decision to abort.  Similarly, depression in mothers going it alone is also not relevant, since they are doing what they decided to do (ie. bear and raise the child).  In the same way, incidence of depression in breadwinning spouses is not relevant to the issue, since they are doing what they agreed to do.

           

          Whereas the issue of men who did not agree to be parents IS relevant to this issue, especially if we are claiming that some women “can not” have abortions because of how they feel about the subject.  They believe it is wrong.  They would be overwhelmed by grief/guild/regret.  So they “can’t” do it.  By the same argument, some men “can’t” support children because of how they would feel about the subject, right?  Oh, but no one really cares how they feel because they consented to parenthood when they consented to sex. And so do women….unless they decide afterward that they didn’t.

           

          And Chance, the anger is understandable, but fantasizing about being angry makes us angry in actuality at nothing.  So it is better not to do it.  Better just to take all necessary precautions against unplanned parenthood.

        11. KK

          Jeremy,

          Have you ever had a conversation with someone where the person accused you of “thinking” something that you don’t think? I have and in the past, my knee jerk reaction was to defend myself. Now, I realize it’s a subtle manipulation technique used to take the focus off of what’s really going on and put me on the defense.

          Anyhow, I’m not accusing you of doing that (maybe you’re genuinely frustrated), but when you make comments that are well thought out and end them with, “Oh, but no one really cares how they feel because they consented to parenthood when they consented to sex”, it’s effect is essentially the same. You have no idea who cares about what. Neither do I and I might be naïve, but I believe MOST people care about others. Outliers like Stacy2 and Chance whose comments continuously lack any self awareness or concern for others, whose sole focus is on themselves are very much in the minority in my opinion. 

          I have heard men complain that women don’t know what they want. But if you guys had any power to change these unfair laws, you don’t even know how to make them fair. I get it. But bitching that women (as a group) don’t care is untrue and counterproductive.

        12. Jeremy

          KK, I get what you are saying, and I did not mean for my last comment to come off as frustration toward you.  Sorry if it did.  It was frustration against society in general for a general lack of caring when it comes to what men want while caring very much what women want.  I realize that there are other topics where the unfairness is reversed.  Frustration is warranted, especially when the comments glibly state “well, when you consented to sex you consented to parenthood”.  But you are correct – for all of the frustration, I don’t have a good suggestion of how the law should be changed (same as I don’t for prosecuting rape charges).

        13. Jeremy

          Sorry for the second comment, but as an addendum:  Whether or not anyone “cares” in the privacy of their internal thoughts is one thing.  But what matters more is how/whether they express that caring in their dealings with those people.

           

          If I told women, “Hey, I know you care about rape victims, but you don’t have any good solutions for changing the law, so please stop whining about the subject,”  I think I would be acting in a very uncaring way, even if I did care about rape victims myself.  A better way to express caring is to admit the unfairness of the situation, admit the validity of the anger, focus on prevention, and continue to brainstorm ways of improving things.

           

          In the same way, a person who tells men to stop whining about this issue, either because that person believes the current law is fair, or because they can’t think of a better solution – may care about men, but is not expressing that care in a meaningful way.  I am not accusing you of this, KK, but I have seen it in the comments of many people on the topic.

        14. KK

          Jeremy,

          I understand and completely agree. What you stated recently about our own biases (known or subconscious) is a big part of the problem, as you already know.

          If a man truly believes that our society is gynocentric (red pillers, MGTOWs, etc), no amount of logic or reason will get through. Likewise, if a woman truly believes that our society is androcentric (some feminists), no amount of logic or reason will get through.

          What I see is a society that is both gynocentric (in some ways) and androcentric (in other ways). I think both are damaging and I think it’s very possible to move in a positive direction if we can ignore the extremists on both ends of the spectrum (and implement new laws in the process). Unfortunately, they’re also the loudest. Nevertheless, that’s the direction we need to move in.

          For example, you brought up rape. If this were truly a society that valued women, do you think a rapist would get away with a 3 month sentence? Likewise, if we truly cared about men, would we allow false rape accusations to continue without consequence? The only solution is to make prison sentences longer. No exceptions. And to prosecute false accusers to the full extent of the law. That might not solve the dilemma completely, but it’s a good start.

        15. Jeremy

          @KK, I agree 100% 🙂

  12. 12
    KK

    Evan wrote about a 17 year old becoming a father by the end of the year. What I’ve seen, which appears to be fairly common, is when the families of the teens involved are (at least) middle class, the grandparents take on full financial responsibility. There’s no child support enforced. I’ve witnessed a number of families deal with this. The baby usually lives with the girl and the girl’s parents while she continues her education and eventually becomes independent enough to support herself and her child. Sometimes the young father’s family helps out. Sometimes they don’t.

    Is this situation completely unfair to people who had no intentions of raising their child’s child? Absolutely. But loving, supportive families are willing to make those sacrifices and they’re not attempting to take 20% of Junior’s paycheck from his part-time job @ Home Depot.

    1. 12.1
      dandy

      Actually what ive seen happen is the boy gets his girlfriend pregnant, his family can’t or won’t help, the babys born and mom is scrambling to accomodate visitation since dad doesn’t have a car usually. Paternal family sees the baby here and there, dad knocks up someone else and marries her and the first kid is basically abandoned by
      dads family because he is too consumed with his new family.

  13. 13
    Morris

    To the original question. Yes co-parenting should be legal. And it’s already moving in that direction. Traditionalist will push back. But we already have laws requiring the man to ‘man’ up. Doesn’t mean there aren’t deadbeat dads. We need new laws to make it more of a partnership. It’s way too easy for women to remove the man from the equation without new laws(regardless of original intent).

  14. 14
    KK

    I think if we’re ever going to make any progress, we first need to very clearly distinguish the differences between divorced parents as it relates to child support / custody and single parents.

    The argument, which I can see both sides of, is about consent and the resulting responsibility.

    If a single woman becomes pregnant and chooses to have the child against the father’s wishes, let’s make her completely responsible. In return, the father will give up his paternal rights and have no access to the child.

    If 50% of children born to parents under 30 are born out of wedlock, we need to consider what effect this will have on society.

    It could have a positive effect. If young girls were taught that in the event of a pregnancy, they will be 100% responsible, they might choose to conduct themselves much differently. We might see a return to chastity. We might see a return to no sex until marriage or engagement.

    Or… nothing much will change or and the burden (in some / many cases) will fall on the tax payers.

    1. 14.1
      Stacy2

      If a single woman becomes pregnant and chooses to have the child against the father’s wishes, let’s make her completely responsible

      This is a Utopian proposition, KK.

      Somebody’s gotta pay the dad’s share of costs for this child, and the reality of the situation is – if it is not the child’s farther, then it is all of us. So he gets to play, and you, I and the rest of tax payers get to pay? Screw this. I think we should go the opposite route and hold childcare expenses in arrears whenever the state is forced to pick up the tab – so if and when the deadbeat daddy comes into some money, the taxpayers can be compensated. This is already implemented in the medicaid program – when a recipient of medicaid dies the state has the right to take whatever property/money they had to partially compensate the program. I say we do that instead.

      There should be no free lunch .. or consequence free sex.

      1. 14.1.1
        Chance

        Stacy2, when are you going to hold mothers accountable if the father wants the child and the mother does not?  You said that people should assume the risks associated with their choices.  Why are pregnant mothers the apparent lone exception to your stance?

        1. Stacy2

          She pays 1/2. Daddy pays 1/2. Or whatever the split. Hold both accountable.

          The dads should simply never be off the hook. Are we supposed to take his word for it that he “didn’t want” the child? How can he possibly prove that short of a sworn and notarized statement  prior to each intercourse that he has notified the woman of his non-desire to have kids and she acknowledged? And if that is not present, why wouldn’t all men simply claim that they never intended to farther their kids and get off the hook? Again, i don’t think so. And this is not a gender issue. This is a fiscal policy issue at the end of the day. Nobody should be forced to pay for the consequences of your ejaculations, sorry.

        2. Evan Marc Katz

          Stop lawyering, Stacy. When men have sex, they don’t want to have children. You have to contort yourself into a major suspension of disbelief to think otherwise. Thus, everything you say to try to back into why this is fair rings false. The woman has a choice to keep the child. The man has none. It’s that inherent imbalance of power in which she can determine his entire future that Chance and I find false and disingenuous.

          To requote you: Nobody should be force to be for the consequences of one woman’s unilateral decision.

        3. Katie

          Stacy2, when are you going to hold mothers accountable if the father wants the child and the mother does not?  You said that people should assume the risks associated with their choices.

          Hi Chance. Are you asking why it’s unethical to force a pregnant woman to carry a baby to term?

        4. Evan Marc Katz

          I think this misses the point and is an unnecessary tangent.

          The simplest view is this: if men could bear children and you couldn’t, how would you feel if he chose bring a child into the world against your wishes, and expect you devote a good portion of your time, energy and resources towards something that you didn’t want? That would seem to be a no-brainer of a question. Nobody wants to be told what to do for a job. Where to live. Whether to have health insurance. What to wear. And yet you’re trying to find some inherent fairness in telling a man what to do with his life, time and wallet for 18 years? All because two people chose to have sex? If you STILL come out on the same side when the roles are reversed – if you are perfectly fine with a man making a decision over which you have no say that hijacks your entire life, then you lack imagination and sympathy.

          And let’s be clear: getting pregnant is an accident. Carrying a child to term and forcing the man to become an unwitting father is CHOICE. It is – and should only be – a woman’s choice. But let’s not pretend for a half-second that this is anything resembling “fair.” To back into the reasoning that by having sex, he was also consenting to be a father is a willful misreading of the BILLIONS of sexual acts that don’t involve intentional procreation. People have sex for fun. Men shouldn’t lose control of their entire lives because women want to have babies. The fact that you think otherwise or the law feels otherwise doesn’t mean that this meets a basic test of fairness. Again, reverse the roles. It’s much easier to see if you’re the one paying 18 years of child support for an unwanted child with a woman you don’t even like or respect.

        5. Stacy2

          Evan,

          so why don’t you drop all the talk about “fairness” (always in the eyes of the beholder) and just come out and say it outright: as men we would like to have completely consequence free, risk-free fun sex! Please someone else (woman, society, community) pay for the occasional woopsies we may have. With your bodies and your wallets. That is your version of what is “fair”?

          Your position implies that lack of intent should absolve of responsibility. In this country this is never the case. Your position implies that men have no agency. But they do (from celibacy to vasectomy). Your position implies that men are entitled to risk-free sex. But they’re not. Is it any wonder your argument is not getting anywhere?

           

           

        6. Evan Marc Katz

          No, it’s no wonder my argument isn’t getting anywhere. Not because it’s an inferior argument, but because most people will do anything to justify their existing worldview, including believing in things that are false, contradictory or irrational. Instead of thinking of “risk-free sex” for men, you seem to have not considered the alternative – women like you rationalizing how you think it’s fair for him to pay for a decision he can’t make.

          Say what you will about me, but I got this job by being expert in understanding different points of view. I see where you’re coming from. You maintain that sex is for procreation and that if a man chooses to have sex with a woman, well, that’s just part of the risk. If it costs him $1M over the next 18 years, sucks for him. I think that’s patently unfair bullshit grounded in a woman who doesn’t give a whit about the unwitting father’s needs. I believe if she carries the child to terms against his wishes, she should be on the hook for it, not him. You’re making the decision to have sex the crucial point. It’s not. BILLIONS of people have sex for pleasure each day with no intention of procreation. The crucial point is after she is accidentally impregnated, what does SHE choose to do. SHE has all the leverage because it’s her body. And since we shouldn’t legislate what a woman does with her own body, the least we could do is legislate the inherent unfairness of half the population losing control of their own destiny.

        7. Chance

          Stacy2,

           

          “Your position implies that lack of intent should absolve of responsibility. In this country this is never the case.”

           

          ….except it is the case in this country when it comes to pregnant women.  These women can do whatever they want.  In fact, pregnant women have no responsibility or liability even if they got pregnant under fraudulent means.

           

          This is why I think that women will ultimately object to hormonal male contraception if it ever hits the market.  I think that many (most?) women want to be in control of the birth regardless of the circumstances.  Children have proven to be a means for women to obtain protection and provisioning for millennia, and I don’t think many women are prepared to relinquish this privilege.

        8. Chance

          Hi Katie,

           

          “Are you asking why it’s unethical to force a pregnant woman to carry a baby to term?”

           

          That’s what I’m getting at.  Do I think it’s ethical to force a pregnant woman to carry a baby to term?  Not really, but then again, I don’t really think it’s ethical to force a man to pay for a child that he didn’t want or have a say in whether it was born, either.

           

          I agree with Evan in that men/women should not be forced to support/birth a child that they did not want, and that it’s best that a woman cannot be forced to carry a child to term if she doesn’t want the child, but I don’t entirely agree with his stance that bringing this up misses the point because I think it helps to illustrate the extent to which so many women are being hypocritical on this subject.  When a man notes how unfair it is to be forced to pay for a child he didn’t want, the first thing most women parrot back is some version of “he should have known the risks before having sex”.  Well, that very same logic can be applied to women, too, but most women don’t want to go there.  However, I don’t see how it’s any different, and the health aspect of it isn’t really relevant because we all make decisions that can affect our health, but we have to live with them.

           

          To be clear:  I don’t think that women should be forced to carry a child to term, but women are speaking out of both sides of their mouths when they say that a man should have known the risks associated with his actions, and therefore, he is responsible.

        9. KK

          “This is why I think that women will ultimately object to hormonal male contraception if it ever hits the market.  I think that many (most?) women want to be in control of the birth regardless of the circumstances.  Children have proven to be a means for women to obtain protection and provisioning for millennia, and I don’t think many women are prepared to relinquish this privilege”.

          This is probably one of the most idiotic comments I’ve ever read.

        10. KK

          Evan’s right, Stacy2, and I’m not trying to gang up on you. You clearly stated that men should become celibate or get vasectomies if they didn’t want to risk becoming fathers. When I said that women should become celibate or wait until marriage, you claimed I was trying to promote social change in women’s sex lives. Do you see the double standard there?

        11. Stacy2

          Evan, on the contrary I understand your position really well. I do. It is not so difficult to understand someone’s desire to have everything their way. We all want that. I just reject your view as both morally self-serving and legally unworkable. The primary goal of sex is actually to procreate, from the biological standpoint. So a pregnancy risk is hardly outrageous, isn’t it? What you’re saying that it’s unfair that you can’t just have it for fun consequence free! Fuck with no consequence – a men’s dream. I get it. But it is biologically impossible to have sex and have zero risk of pregnancy unless one or both partners are sterile. So you want the woman to have all of the risk and for the man to have none. She get’s pregnant, you say a word “i don’t want it” and she’s left with 100% of the risks – a trauma of the abortion or financial burden, while you get to dace away into the sunset with the next girl. That’s a morally bankrupt position. And the legal hazards I have already addressed so I will not repeat myself.

        12. Evan Marc Katz

          This is a silly statement from a bright and practical woman: “The primary goal of sex is actually to procreate, from the biological standpoint.”

          Of course, we don’t live our lives as mere vessels of biology. We make choices. My biology says to procreate with lots of people to spread my genes. I chose not to do that.
          To put a finer point on it: I have had sex with dozens of women. I have had sex to procreate with ONE of them. For the record, that’s a lot of condoms and safe sex for 15 years. If one of my ex’s or one night stands got pregnant and decided against my will to keep the baby, I would be DEVASTATED. So for you to tell me that somehow “I was taking the risk”? Honestly, I couldn’t summon enough negative words for your lack of empathy or understanding. You keep talking about risk-free sex where the man gets off scot free. To level it out, she gets a baby (that she chooses to have) and he gets his entire future rewritten. There is a basic moral code that you don’t seem to follow.

          To address your main point: “she’s left with 100% of the risks – a trauma of the abortion or financial burden.” A stand up guy should help out with the abortion emotionally and financially. A stand up woman should let him off the hook for having the kid he didn’t want. There. That’s two people who are actually considering the others’ feelings instead of your “You got me pregnant, so now I will destroy your life” worldview.

        13. Stacy2

          I would be DEVASTATED

          Dramatic much?? Really, you’d be devastated, your life would be forever ruined if you had a baby on the side and were asked to contribute a modest amount of $ towards childcare? Here in my state it is 17% on income up to 143K (that’s a cap), after taxes that’s pretty much capped at $1000 per kid per month. Oh horror. First world white privilege version of “devastation” on display, exhibit A. And it is flat $25 and $50 per month if the non-custodial parent is making less than FPL or 16K respectively… in other words if you’re a 17 yo student you’re simply off the hook.

          A stand up guy should help out with the abortion emotionally and financially. A stand up woman should let him off the hook for having the kid he didn’t want. There.

          There what? And if that abortion leaves her dead who the hell is going to need his “emotional support”? And if this abortion leaves her infertile? You want to talk about fair? Let’s make it fair. If a guy requests she has an abortion and she dies he goes to prison for murder. If she has serious health consequences, he has to undergo a vasectomy. Since you think abortion is oh so safe and is a walk in the park, you should agree the risk there is so small that it’s only fair. Any takers?

        14. Nat

          @Chance: “This is why I think that women will ultimately object to hormonal male contraception if it ever hits the market.”

          That’s a big assumption, Chance. I for one have zero problem with hormonal male contraception. It’d be great to have that option available. I’m pro-choice, but I definitely think preventing an unwanted pregnancy via contraception is preferable to an abortion.

          Btw men may find it isn’t the perfect solution they think it is. I’ve tried taking the pill sometimes to regulate my cycle, and always gave up after a mth because of side effects, and it was hard to consistently remember to take it at the same time everyday. Now it’ll be men’s problem too :p

           

          Frankly I partly blame this trend of out-of-wedlock births on the lib movement, though I’m a liberal myself. It’s become un-PC to say that children deserve the best, and the best is being born into a happy two-parent home to married parents.

           

        15. Katie

          Chance says

          “When a man notes how unfair it is to be forced to pay for a child he didn’t want, the first thing most women parrot back is some version of “he should have known the risks before having sex”. “

          For the record, I disagree that most women feel that women should feel obligated to get child support.  Some do, but many, many women don’t.

          I’m skimming this thread and I notice that few females are voicing this opinion, so to be clear I’m not saying it to get a pat on the back from dudes.  My experience leads me to think my opinion is NOT a minority opinion among females. I account for the low female representation on this thread by rationalizing that the women most likely to respond are the ones who strongly oppose the suggestion that men should not have to pay for children they didn’t want.

      2. 14.1.2
        Tron Swanson

        Taxpayer money already goes to help single mothers and their children.

        I’d gladly pay a little more in taxes if it meant that I didn’t have to worry about being on the hook for 18 years because women have a right that I don’t have…

      3. 14.1.3
        KK

        “This is a Utopian proposition, KK”.

        I don’t believe it is, Stacy2. Child support wasn’t even established until 1975. Roe vs Wade was 1973. Yet single parenthood and the resulting burden on society has increased.

        “Somebody’s gotta pay the dad’s share of costs for this child, and the reality of the situation is – if it is not the child’s farther, then it is all of us”.

        That’s already the case in the poorest communities. Different laws need to be established in those cases if we ever want to see the problem eradicated.

        “There should be no free lunch .. or consequence free sex”.

        If women are the gatekeepers of sex, then only women can decide if sex will be consequence free. Women can either choose to remain celibate until marriage, thereby ensuring they will be protected in the event of divorce (with children) or they can choose to gamble. Most women are very careful not to become pregnant unless they want to, especially past a certain age. If Evan’s 50% stat is accurate, that means women are becoming less careful (for whatever reason). Before marriage, I started using birth control pills when I entered a serious relationship and I required him to use condoms. I figured that was a pretty safe strategy. People who sincerely do not want to become parents, don’t.

         

        1. Stacy2

          Women can either choose to remain celibate until marriage, thereby ensuring they will be protected in the event of divorce (with children) or they can choose to gamble.

          Yup. And when they chose to gamble and lose and become single mothers with free-range off the hook dads we are still going to pick up the tab… Why on earth would we want to do that? YMMV, but i am not interested in paying for some attempt to engineer social change in women’s sexual behavior through my taxes.

        2. KK

          “Yup. And when they chose to gamble and lose and become single mothers with free-range off the hook dads we are still going to pick up the tab… Why on earth would we want to do that?”

          WE ALREADY ARE! Do you not get that?? Requiring a 17 year old to contribute 20% of his income to a child he does not want is NOT going to keep the mother from poverty.  (The only time these teenage moms are saved from that fate are when the grandparents take on full responsibility at least for some time… usually years). Let’s face it. Teenagers don’t always make the wisest decisions.

          Let’s contrast that with someone in their mid 20s or older. You should be at a point in life where you are making better decisions for yourself. You should be able to support yourself. If you become pregnant, you should be able to support the child without help. If not, don’t get pregnant.

          This isn’t an attempt at engineering social change in women’s sexual behavior. Although, it’s likely that would be the result.

        3. Robert

          huh? Child support existed before then. It’s always existed. So too alimony. Hell, my dad’s brother got stuck paying out CS and alimony to the tune of an airline pilots pay–he paid his ex as much as an airline pilot was paid by a major airline. Six figures.

        4. KK

          The Child Support Enforcement and Paternity Establishment Program (CSE), enacted in 1975, was a response by Congress to reduce public expenditures on welfare by obtaining support from noncustodial parents on an ongoing basis, to help non-AFDC families get support so they could stay off public assistance, and to establish paternity for children born outside marriage so child support could be obtained for them.

      4. 14.1.4
        Stacy2

        Again, reverse the roles. It’s much easier to see if you’re the one paying 18 years of child support for an unwanted child with a woman you don’t even like or respect.

        This mental exercise is very hard for me to do. I just can’t imagine having sex with a person who “i don’t even like or respect”. May be that’s one solution. Don’t have sex with women you don’t like or respect!

        1. Chance

          Ole!  Nice job, matador.

        2. Stacy

          @Stacy2

          You have been brilliant in all your posts regarding this matter. I totally get what you’re saying and support all your conclusions.

          That is all.

  15. 15
    Robert

    If a man must, by law, pay child support than it is only reasonable, moral and just for him to have legal rights to the child. This is possible to do and not so hard, but he must go to court and file motions, attend hearings and spend lots of money to obtain this. This is by product of modern feminism. It was not this way once upon a time. However, once upon a time a man could lose his job for not marrying the woman who bore his child. A married man accused of fathering a child out of wedlock was ruined.
    No woman should be able to collect child support without surrending 50-50 legal rights to the child–provided the man is “fit” to be a parent. Same is true for the mother.

    1. 15.1
      Stacy

      @Robert

      Did you forget that most men do not seem to want the option of taking care of a child 50/50 so it often falls on the mother. It is NOT difficult to have legal rights to your own child as long as you are stable.  My best friend does family law. And most men pay child support because they are on an ‘every other weekend’ arrangement and don’t want the additional responsibility. Show me a man who has his ish together and petitions the court for equal custody and equal rights to his child and gets turned down. I am so sick of men spreading this fallacy.

  16. 16
    Robert

    Evan–

    sorry but you’re wrong about unwed mothers and no affect on the children. Ten times more likely to end up in prison, drop out of school, get pregnant, be abused and the list goes on. 80% of America’s prison inmates came from a single mother household.

    1. 16.1
      Evan Marc Katz

      Not sure what you’re reading but I have frequently cited the statistics for children of single mothers…much to the chagrin of single mothers.

      1. 16.1.1
        Henriette

        …the chagrin of *some* single mothers.  I feel neither humiliated nor distressed by the assertion that children raised in happy two-parent households (as I was) are statistically more likely to have positive outcomes than those raised by single mothers (as my son is).   Many variables impact how well a person fares in life and, like most loving parents, I am doing my best while not fretting over the things I can’t change.

    2. 16.2
      KK

      There’s a huge difference between single mothers (who never married) living in poverty with 4 children from 4 different absent fathers and divorced single mothers living in Beverly Hills (or even good old middle class USA) with kids that still get to see their dads every week and stay with him every other weekend. The mother’s morals also play a huge role. It doesn’t matter her socioeconomic status if she has strange men revolving in and out of the house, it will mess up the kids.

      1. 16.2.1
        GoWiththeFlow

        In impoverished subcultures, it’s not being a single mother that causes all of the problems, but rather single parenthood is one of a constellation of social ills that leads to bad outcomes.  Anyone read Hillbilly Elegy:  A Memoir of A Family and Culture in Crisis, by J. D. Vance?   Yes single motherhood plays a part, but so do intermittent or absent fathers, poverty, interpersonal violence, disdain for the value of an education, despair/mental illness, and drug use.  And the problems are multigenerational and self perpetuating.  The author’s rock of stability, his grandmother, set her husband on fire in front of their young kids when he came home drunk and passed out on the couch.  The STABLE person!

  17. 17
    Robert

    I was reading your initial post for the article.

  18. 18
    Robert

    Stacy2–

    your postion, as usual, is one of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Rather like using a beta male for his provisioning capabilities and baby making capacity and still having the (“moral”) option of free range sex with alpha males.  Neither position is moral, fair or just. Women wanted equality and they got it. Time for women to “manup” and accept their responsibility for their own choices and behaviors .

    family court was not my speciality and was not something I ever desired to partake in. I’ve been forced to due to my son’s mother backtracking on our agreement for me to have full custody w/o a court stipulation.  The family court system is blatently discriminatory against men and a cess pit of shit due to the lawyers who practice in it as a career choice. Despite the odds, my son is still with me full time nearly three years into an epic battle. So epic, every clerk and bailiff in the court house knows about it. I am forever being congratulated and good luck wished upon me by them. Every man knows the odds are against him from the get go.

     

    1. 18.1
      Allheart81

      I do think there is some discrimination of men gaining full custody. But I also Know When we look at statistics, women still take on the majority of the child care and household duties in most situations.  Men certainly have shared more in these responsibilities the past couple decades, it use to be rare to see a dad pushing a stroller and now it isn’t, but women are still doing most of the work on the home front.

      Women also are the ones that usually sacrifice their career to take on these extra responsibilities. Now this obviously isn’t the case in your situation Robert. But maybe men need to step up their game even more to split household and child care chores while married if they want equal chance for custody once divorce happens. Of course, there are many other factors at play here. And I do think men have taken more responsibility for child care responsibilities, But I think it’s strange that statistically women take on more of the domestic work, even today, and yet that’s not suppose to factor in to who gets the children. Would you give the children to the one that has taken on most of their child rearing for most of their life? Or to the one that after the divorce now is willing to step up to take on more child care? And I am not saying men are bad dads or selfish. Just highlighting the fact that in most cases, the mom has been the primary caretaker.

      1. 18.1.1
        Robert

        Step up game? Read my reply to “just saying” below. I won full custody of my two older children and cared for them full time. This child is the result of FWB with the same woman. Major mistake but I love the boy. I’m the one who raised him, not her. Everyone knows that. The whole neighborhood knows that. Taking care of children and raising them properly is not hard. It’s a simple matter of setting boundaries and sticking to them. Children thrive under that. It’s when you don’t stick to boundaries that children run amok. You can’t use your money to buy them off and expect it to work out well. All you do is end up with a major fuckup and societal head case with an intense sense of entitlement.

        Every woman who’s ever met my little boy say the same things-” he’s adorable”, ” he’s so well behaved” and ” he’s so well mannered” not to mention “he’s so intelligent and well spoken”.

      2. 18.1.2
        Jeremy

        @Allheart81, I really disagree with what you wrote.  The studies you quoted, the ones that show women still doing the majority of home and childcare work?  The ones that make women feel that the world is unfair to them and that men get off easy?  They also show that men do considerably more paid work than women, and that total work on average is about the same.  So when women advocate that men do more home/childcare work, they are actually advocating that men should do more work than women in total, unless they want men to do less paid work or to do more paid work themselves.  But is this what they actually want?

         

        Pew studies show that the majority of women with children prefer to work part-time or not at all.  They do not want to work full-time away from home.  So they don’t want to even the scales by doing more paid work themselves.  And if they don’t want to do more paid work, they certainly don’t want men to do less, because you can’t support a family with 2 people working part-time.  When one parent strives to achieve a “work-life balance”, someone else has to pay the bills by sacrificing their work-life balance.

         

        Sorry for the rant, but this is something that too many people ignore.  People focus on the sacrifices made by the primary caregiving spouse and ignore the sacrifices of the breadwinning spouse.  Replace the word “sacrifice” with the word “privilege” and you better understand how men see women who step away from the workforce at their expense.  View the increased household and childcare duties that they do in the context of the reduced paid work they do and realize that the status quo is not unfair.  And realize that for every woman that does more work in total than her husband, there is a husband who does the same (given how averages work, and what the average is).

         

        Given this, of COURSE it should not matter who was the primary caregiver prior to divorce.

    2. 18.2
      Just saying

      Roberts, Sorry about your divorce and your bad experiences arising from it. You probably speak from the position of an MRA (Men’s rights movement) which I familiar with through my reading of MRA and PUA and Tradcon sites. No I don’t agree with everything they say, but at least they are consistent – well, more consistent than a lot of modern feminist views.

      While MRA men object to the partiality of the courts towards women, sometimes unjustifiably so,  they ALL agree that the father should play a role in their children’s lives and have responsibility for their children’s emotional and financial welfare.

      Interestingly enough, the vast majority of MRAs and PUAs agree that men SHOULD be made to pay for children they didn’t want because simply they (the MRAs and PUAs) DO NOT want to pay for children that they are not biologically linked to, and whom they did not bring into this world. They however, object to having child support linked to a man’s ability to pay, which I happen to agree with. They also object to the mother not being accountable in the least for the money she gets – I am on the fence about this.

      This is why a lot of their blogs are dedicated to how NOT to get a woman pregnant, going to the extreme of disposing their own condoms or at least putting a cauterising agent into their used condom – much to the derision and mockery of liberal feminisst which many on this blog claim they are. I think it is the irony or ironies that liberal feminist mock and deride men going to such extremes to avoid paternity, yet believe these men should not have to pay for children they did not want.

      1. 18.2.1
        Robert

        Just saying–

        we were already divorced when child number four came along–the ultimate in FWB’s outcome. The circumstances of the divorce revolved around the tragic death of child number three.  The divorce was not my idea–it was her family’s idea. They just never figured I’d end up with full physical and legal custody of the two older children.

        I have no bitterness toward my ex and I describe the system as it is. The sword cuts both ways with regard to child supoort, just most women don’t feel they should be subject to it.

        The fact that my ex went back on our agreement over child four is irrelevant. It is what it is. She went back on it largely because I cut off her access to me and the benefits. She shows no real interest in the child and only got pregnant in the first place because she expected me to remarry her. When I declined to do so, she latched on to fwb. When that eventually failed, she resorted to the custody action.

    3. 18.3
      Katie

      I’ve been forced to due to my son’s mother backtracking on our agreement for me to have full custody w/o a court stipulation.  

      Geez what a monster. She wants some custody of her own kid.

      So epic, every clerk and bailiff in the court house knows about it. I am forever being congratulated and good luck wished upon me by them. Every man knows the odds are against him from the get go.

      High five broski. You get that mean old bitch.

  19. 19
    Nissa

    I’m a little surprised over all the furor of “that’s not fair!” Life in general isn’t fair. As a sexually active woman, I always knew exactly what I would do if I got pregnant. Not a single man ever asked me about it, though. Personally, abortion would have been an option for me, no question about it. I had a few times where I wasn’t careful, but if I had been pregnant, it wouldn’t have occurred to me to blame the man. I’m responsible for my body, period. Any cash offered toward that end would have been appreciated, though.

    However, that is why I’m such an advocate for Vaselgel. It will give men much more power over that particular situation, and will be completely reversible, so even married men can benefit from it. I can’t wait for the day this product becomes commercially available. I’ll be leaving leaflets out for my boyfriend when the time comes.

    1. 19.1
      GoWiththeFlow

      Hey Nissa,

      Since you mentioned Vaselgel, I think I’ll drop this comment here 😉

      Upstream in the 14.1.1 thread Chance said:

      “This is why I think that women will ultimately object to hormonal male contraception if it ever hits the market.  I think that many (most?) women want to be in control of the birth regardless of the circumstances.  Children have proven to be a means for women to obtain protection and provisioning for millennia, and I don’t think many women are prepared to relinquish this privilege.”

      Only problem is it seems to be men who aren’t enthusiastic about male birth control.  Vasalgel is being developed by a non-profit that is right now trying to raise the money to do clinical trials.  Why?  Because pharmaceutical companies aren’t willing to invest the money into developing a male contraceptive because they aren’t seeing any demand for it from men.  Not like Viagra!

      As someone who would have taken the abortion option at certain point in my life, and who want’s that option to be available for my nieces, daughter, and granddaughter, the disconnect I am seeing in the men on this post regarding the availability and affordability of abortion is annoying.  There are many areas where women have to travel hundreds of miles to the nearest abortion clinic.  The state of Kentucky is trying right now to shut down their only remaining clinic because of a TRAP law.  Health insurance coverage for abortion is prohibited in the insurance plans federal employees and military service members have.  The Hyde amendment prevents medicaid dollars from paying for abortion.  But the underpinning assumption of the whole “men should be off the hook for child support because women can have abortions” argument is that abortion is SOOOO easy to obtain.

      I wish the men out there gave a damn about the erosion of abortion rights and services in this country, since a helluva a lot of them would be on the hook for child support and more if it wasn’t for women sometimes jumping through huge hoops to obtain one.

      1. 19.1.1
        Tron Swanson

        Nissa, GWTF,

        If “Tough luck, life isn’t fair” is an appropriate response to men complaining about child support, then it should also be an appropriate response to women complaining about abortion restrictions.

        Personally, I’ve always thought that “life isn’t fair” is a ridiculous argument: of course life (nature) isn’t fair; the whole point of society is to make it as fair and safe as possible. Ergo, I’m pro-choice and hope that male birth control becomes widespread. But if you’re going to use a certain argument against someone, don’t be surprised if they throw it back in your face…

        1. GoWiththeFlow

          Except neither Nissa or I are throwing out the “Tough luck life isn’t fair” response to men who express grievances about child support norms in our society.

          What I am pointing out is that women having accessible and affordable abortion is the underpinning assumption of the argument that women can unilaterally choose abortion so men should be able to choose unilaterally choose self-TPR.  If the men (and women) advocating for this position want it to be accepted and put into actual public policy, then they should concurrently work to ensure that abortion is accessible and affordable.  The argument is put out there without regards to the fact that access to abortion has been made very difficult for many women and their SOs in the past several years, and that situation looks like it’s going to get worse.

  20. 20
    Stacy

    Abortion can make you infertile

    Abortion significantly increases the risk of a woman getting cervical CANCER

    Abortion can lead to ectopic pregnancies in the future

    Increased risk of endometriosis

    Abortion is very traumatic and takes a toll on the body for many women

    Abortion isn’t safe and/or affordable everywhere

    There are possibly many negative psychological effects to abortion

    Some believe that abortion is murder and can’t/won’t abort for religious or personal beliefs

    Abortion is NOT Something TO BE taken lightly. Men, you don’t want kids – control your ejaculation and wear a condom to prevent pregnancy. The nerve to be upset at child support etc. and the nerve to expect a woman to be 100% responsible for a baby. When you bent her over, you know that is one of the risks. No excuse. Since a woman carries the baby, it is not your right to demand she aborts if she feels it is not in her best interest. So how about making sure that does not happen in the first place?

      1. 20.1.1
        KK

        If a man becomes a single father against his will, he should have two options:

        1) Take on the responsibility by being fully involved in his child’s life (joint custody and visitation) and paying child support

        OR

        2) Legally give up his parental rights thereby relieving himself of all responsibility; financially and otherwise

        I know this an unpopular stance. However, I think it’s best for everyone involved not to force someone into parenthood. If the father isn’t fully on-board, is that someone you want having access to your child? Is that someone you want making important decisions for your child? Is that someone you want having the legal authority to keep you from moving if you choose to?

        1. Emily, the original

          KK,

          I completely agree with you. But if he chooses option 2, he doesn’t get to reappear 5 years later because he’s changed his mind and wants to be involved.

        2. KK

          Emily,

          Yay, someone agrees with me. Lol.

          But… Nope. He wouldn’t be allowed to do that.

          My friend’s niece got pregnant in college. Her boyfriend said he wanted the child. When the baby was born, he changed his mind. The girl’s father had a rather persuasive chat with him telling him he needed to step up or step out. Long story short… he gave up his parental rights, she married someone else several years later, and her husband adopted her child.

        3. Emily, the original

          KK,

          I was thinking along the lines of your friend’s niece’s story. That a few years later the woman could marry another man who actually wants to be a parent.

        4. GoWiththeFlow

          KK,

          You illustrated a very pertinent point:  Some people waffle and change their minds on what they want to do.  And this can go on for years.

          “I want the baby.”

          “I’ve thought about it more, and I don’t.”

          “I’m fine giving up parental rights.”

          “I was young and stupid then, I really want to be there for my child now.”

          I also wonder how many of these situations wind up in actual court.  Luckily, most of the people I know who faced an unplanned pregnancy worked things out between themselves.  There was usually a lot of agreement on what to do.  When the woman had an abortion, the man agreed with the decision.  In some situations, the birth father and the birth mom completely cut ties and the maternal grandparents helped to support their grandchild.  In others, a coparenting arrangement was worked out and both sets of extended families pitched in.

          I truly think it’s a minority of cases, where the parents can’t get on the same page–waffling is present!–where this winds up in court.

        5. KK

          GWTF,

          Agreed! I think that’s where the frustration lies with some of the ladies. I think women that intentionally become pregnant against their bf’s wishes are in the vast minority. So when all this blame gets put solely on the woman, it’s frustrating. BOTH people took a risk. BOTH people were irresponsible (especially when it’s young people) and sometimes (although rarely) birth control really does fail. Not to mention, I can’t even tell you how many times I’ve heard women (and girls, when I was younger) who weren’t on birth control and allowed their bf’s to convince them the pull out method was safe. And then… when she ended up pregnant, these guys were just beside themselves. *Face palm*

  21. 21
    Marie

    Gah! What happened to this thread??  My two cents:

    1) Abortion is going to be outlawed outright or made highly inaccessible soon, already happened in a lot of states.  Hope those who are pointing it out as a viable option are out there demonstrating against its restrictions?

    2) This will be followed closely be decreased affordable access to birth control, already happening.

    3) Combined with abstinence only sex education in our schools so our kids won’t have the foggiest idea how to even use birth control.

    So congratulations future fathers of America!  Whether you wanted to or not, keep the baby or give up for adoption, our government will make sure you have every opportunity to bring more life into the world!

  22. 22
    Selena

    Tom 10 said: “That said, I’m not actually against the direct approach per-se, I just think it needs some nuance in practice. A balancing act between assertive enough to bring success, yet guarded enough to handle the rejection.

     Can you see now why men don’t often say straight up that they’re just looking to hook-up?”

    Ha, I can!

    Many years ago I guy I worked with made a comment about how long it had been since he’d had sex. I ignored it. The next week he made a  comment that he was so horny he was about to shake out of his shoes.?Would I be willing to help him out?

    Ugh No. He was a nice looking guy, but he was a co-worker for one thing, and the TOTAL lack of finesse, nuance of any kind was off-putting all by itself. How often does a direct, crude approach work with women? Seriously.

    Being friendly, flirty, and saying “I’m not looking for anything serious right now” is usually enough “code” for a woman looking for a fling.

     

    1. 22.1
      Emily, the original

      Selena,

      How often does a direct, crude approach work with women? Seriously.

      It can work with me, depending on how it’s done, but I have to be attracted to the man, which is of course completely out of his control.

      Many years ago I guy I worked with made a comment about how long it had been since he’d had sex. I ignored it. The next week he made a  comment that he was so horny he was about to shake out of his shoes.?Would I be willing to help him out?

      The first comment, IMO, wasn’t direct. That was a testing of the waters to see how you would respond. The fact that you didn’t respond should have given him your answer. The second comment was just poorly executed. There has to be at least a preliminary atmosphere of mutual attraction and flirtation established. Since you didn’t respond to the first comment … I’m sure it felt weird.

    2. 22.2
      Tom10

      Hey Selena.
      “The next week he made a  comment that he was so horny he was about to shake out of his shoes.?Would I be willing to help him out?”
       
      Haha. How kind of him to share such info. And with such a polite request how could you possibly say no?!
       
      “Being friendly, flirty, and saying “I’m not looking for anything serious right now” is usually enough “code” for a woman looking for a fling.”
       
      Right. This is exactly how to get a fling.
       

  23. 23
    Selena

    @Emily

    You wrote: “There has to be at least a preliminary atmosphere of mutual attraction and flirtation established.”

    Selena: “How often does a direct, crude approach work with women? Seriously.

    Emily:It can work with me, depending on how it’s done, but I have to be attracted to the man, which is of course completely out of his control.”

    Okay. So in sum, you are cool with a man making a direct, crude-ish proposition to you as long as you are attracted to him, and you have established you have a mutual attraction via flirtation.

    So “hey babe, wanna fuck?” doesn’t work for you?

    I think you are making Tom 10’s point Emily.

     

    1. 23.1
      Emily, the original

      Selena,

      This worked for me:

      Him: “Do you have a boyfriend?”

      Me: “I did, but he moved away, and I’m tired of moping around about something that’s not going to happen.”

      Him: “Why do you come over here and moan for something that will?”

      It was obvious the attraction was mutual. We had met a couple of days earlier. He said this to me over the phone. I was ostensibly calling for his roommate, but he figured out pretty quickly I was really calling for him. I suppose it may sometimes be difficult to determine if the attraction is mutual. Nobody bats 1000, but if nobody bats, nothing happens.

  24. 24
    KK

    Shaukat said, “You seem to think that the default assumption when dating should be that each party is looking for an LTR unless otherwise stated. I don’t think that should be assumed”.

    Of course there is no default assumption. I’ve never stated that. If anything, women assume a man’s default position is most likely NSA sex until he shows us otherwise. Likewise, men should assume the opposite is most likely. If a man with integrity wants to be sure he doesn’t lead a woman on unnecessarily, it would behoove him to have that discussion. Women already know how most men operate. Therefore, if we’re in relationship mode, we take our time deciding if someone is LTR potential. If there’s a possibility they are, we wait on the sex part until there’s a commitment.

    The example you gave earlier about meeting a rando in a bar and asking her back to your place for drinks is not the equivalent of dating. Obviously it wouldn’t be necessary to tell her your not interested in a relationship.

    As to the other point about FZ, maybe what you stated is somewhat common. From what I’ve seen and experienced, clearly telling a guy you’re not interested in anything other than friendship is more common.

    1. 24.1
      Tom10

      @ KK #24
      “If a man with integrity wants to be sure he doesn’t lead a woman on unnecessarily, it would behoove him to have that discussion. Women already know how most men operate.”
       
      If women already know that men only want NSA sex unless otherwise stated, why does it behove men to have a discussion telling her what she already knows to retain his integrity?
       
      Does the opposite hold true; does it behove women to have a discussion she wants a relationship to retain her integrity?
       
      I dunno. I think in real life dating there is a gray zone where both parties are trying to fulfil their own needs whilst simultaneously trying to assess the other party’s intentions.
       
      So this situation has nothing to do with integrity, it’s about the dating skill: neither party wants to show their hand before seeing the other’s.
       
      Implying that guys who don’t state that they want just sex have no integrity is just poor game.

    2. 24.2
      Shaukat

      Agree Tom. KK, dating is a messy process. You have strong opinions as to how “men with integrity” should conduct themselves, while men’s complaints about certain aspects of the game are dismissed as whining or not in tune with reality  (the courting threads). Again, if you’re unsure of where you stand, it’s up to you to vocalize your concerns. You have to take some risk as well.

      1. 24.2.1
        KK

        Shaukat,

        I think everyone should date with integrity. It is a two way street, after all. I’m not sure which courting threads you’re referring to where I’ve dismissed men’s complaints.

        For me, personally, it’s not an issue because I’ve always been honest and upfront with where I stand. I expect the same respect in return. If that respect / honesty isn’t reciprocated, it’s a pretty simple solution. I agree with what Evan advocates in his sexclusivity post.

  25. 25
    Selena

    Tom 10: “I dunno. I think in real life dating there is a gray zone where both parties are trying to fulfil their own needs whilst simultaneously trying to assess the other party’s intentions.”neither party wants to show their hand before seeing the other’s.”

    I can’t speak for men, but I feel women are told/socialized to “play it cool”. That asking a guy about his intentions too soon will scare him away. He might perceive her as needy/clingy/ wanting to get serious immediately. They don’t bring up monogamy, they tacitly go along with the “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” policy and as a result sometimes find themselves in a casual sex situation instead of having the *real* boyfriend they wanted.  Been there.

    If either person were to ask “What are you looking for?” type questions in a light, matter-of-fact way fairly early it might save some misunderstandings and bad feelings down the line.

     

  26. 26
    Noel Peterson

    I had my children out of wedlock. Their father took primary custody even though he is a felon and put them in harms way in the first place because he lived in the same state as his mother who had custody when we split up while I was getting situated. If I would have had anything to have had something set up to protect my children’s rights and how the custody would be split before hand, it would have saved 6 years of fighting for my children back in my life. I wish I would have had anything besides the “I’m sorry’s” I received while trying to legally prove they should be with me at least half the time. The government does not always work for mothers and it doesn’t always help the dad’s but the one’s that suffer are the children going through it all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *