Deadbeats

"Phil #3" wrote in message ink.net...
"trifold" wrote in message
om...
"Phil #3" wrote in message
nk.net...
"trifold" wrote in message
om...

Sex with other men? That's just plain disgusting.
What options do men have "when they (or their partners) **** up"?
I count... well, none. If I'm missing something please fill me in.
Phil #3

Historically, they disappear.

trifold
www.vasectomy-information.com

Are you saying that men disappear when they find out they may or will become
parents? If so, I'd have to call you on that. Typically, men do NOT
disappear, only a few do. There are more abortions each year than men who
"disappear", which means that women have an out that is not available to men
and even then, men almost always stick around. Even then, it's not really an
option, not a legal one at any rate.
Phil #3

I was only saying that historically it has always been easier for men
to disappear than for women, in part because they are less attached to
the child, in part because they have more options for employment, they
are more mobile, etc. This, I would argue, is one reason women have
had greater incentive to practice bc. (Men also have less incentive
because they don't have to carry the kid for 9 months: Can you
imagine any man putting up with that!) This difference, I suggest, is
one reason drug companies have been more willing to invest big $$s in
a female pill.

trifold
www.vasectomy-informations.com

trifold wrote:
Bob wrote in message .

Feminists demand power for women to control sex and reproduction.
Feminists want women to have the power to control fertility. Feminists
have lobbied agaisnt research money for men's BC for decades.

Evidence?

What planet did you say you live on?


since it is only relatively recently
that men have been pushing this (and because condoms still make sense
for men who aren't in committed relationships).

Wrong. It's only since the Internet that men have been able to spread
information without it being controlled and silenced.

Controlled and silenced by the woman dominated publishing industry?
Oh yeah, sure. What planet do you live on?

Start with the NY Times with an open feminist policy. Warren Farrell
has documented it in a couple of his books.


Surgical modification is invasive, violent, and not usually reversible.
Don't want kids now does not guarantee the future.

Do you think women would give up female BC methods and rely solely on
surgery? Why then do you suggest that for men?

Just making the point that many fewer men are willing to go through
vasectomy than women are willing to go through a tubal. And tubals
are much more "violent" and invasive procedures.

Vasectomy also makes sex painful for many men for 5 or 10 years. See
"PVP" on your cited web site. Just the probability of turning sex into
pain would be enough to discourage most men -- if the medical industry
were honest enough to tell men about it.

Tubal's don't make sex painful for women.


Black people went quietly to the back of the bus for years too. That
didn't make "white's only" any less bigoted. Neither does men going
along make "female only" any less bigoted.

This comparison of men to blacks is silly and offense. Men have
dominated all power structures in this country and in most of the
world for centuries--and still do.

Your selective bigotry is no less offensive. Female bigotry about men
is just as prejudicial and just as wrong.

Females have dominated all power structures in this country and most of
the world for centuries -- and still do.

Men are considered expendable and are used as guinea
pigs for research that might be fatal.

So you admit most medical research has been based on research w/male
subjects?


Only where the test subjects were likely to die from being used. Like
most feminazi bigots you deliberatly confuse "for" with "on." Medical
research in the 20th century has been dominated by research FOR females.


Any fair minded person could find numerous reasons for this lack of
interest:

Yes, a fair minded person would recognize a century of sexist
discrimination against men.

Men have triumphed heroically, I see. For despite this long century
you describe, they still dominate in most areas of life.

Men dominate by working harder in areas where hard work makes a
difference.

In general, men are paid better for the same work with the same
credentials.

Repeating old LIES shows your prejudice.


But my main point is that men do dominate.

And you are proving that feminazis LIE. Women ensure their domination
by LYING.


If they
dominate (as you admit), it is silly to also claim they are
discrimnated against.

Since women dominate, as you display, it is silly to also claim that
they are discriminated against. Men are discriminated against in every
part of society.


1) Developing a male pill would be expensive;

NOT when compared to money spent on female pills.

Why do you say this? The FOX article itself makes the point that the
demands on a male bc pill are far more complicated, since men make
sperm all the time; and the production of sperm is directly tied to
hormonal activity controlling sex drive (among other things).

Above you posted, "Reports are they are now very close," even with
minimal research budgets. Now you contradict that and claim that it's
far more complicated.

They are close despite the extra complication. Maybe it has taken
longer because of this extra complication (as well as the perception a
male pill would not sell).

LOL. Twist, turn, lie. With almost no research budget for the past
century, once they began doing some research it was learned that the
problem isn't very hard. You're bigotry is showing again.


Are you saying that
only expensive products for females are necessary?

No. Only that drug companies (or any other capitalist enterprise),
when faced between the choice of developing an expensive drug for a
segment of the population that they know will buy the drug because
they are strongly motivated to do so (and because they are good about
going to the doctor and following doctors' orders), and an expensive
drug for a segment of the population that has less incentive to buy,
they will make the safe choice.

IOW: You admit that systematic discrimination in favor of females and
agaisnt men has gone on for most of the 20th century.

I admit that drug companies did not develop a male pill. I think
there are many reasons--and that a feminist conspiracy is not one of
them.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.


And how do you know that men have "less incentive to buy"? Free clue:
Women are not an authority on men's incentives.

Women don't run drug companies, either. Nor do they dominate in the
medical profession.

Women dominate the medical industrial complex's goals and customer base
because women have so much more money to spend and are willing to spend
it being "pampered." You confuse "for" with "by" again. Another
standard feminazi lie.


Getting trapped into 20 years of child support or marriage, etc., by a
female who claims she's "on the pill" has been a major concern of men
since "the pill" was invented.

If men feared this as much as you think, they would use rubbers more.

Cow****. If men have to use rubbers they might as well go home and
watch TV. Most women don't like them either.


I don't follow. But what about non-monogamous men using condoms in
any case? (I believe the FOX article makes this point.)

Why are you still arguing that crude 19th century devices are good
enough for men when women have had large array of BC options developed
by massive funding over the subsequent century. Talk about total bigotry.

I'm just saying drug companies could reasonably conclude men would not
buy the male pill, because they'd use condoms anyway. Condoms,
however 19th century, are the only reliable protection agains STD. So
drug companies have not seen the market value in investing in the male
pill.

You're just trying to deny the fact of a century of total anti-men
discrimination by the medical industrial complex.


Compare the % of men who go to the dr. regularly to the % of women who
do.

A recently published study of the doctor process reported that the
process was psychologically offensive to men, but acceptable for women.

I haven't seen this study. But it seems to support what I have said:
that men don't go to the doctor and so would be seen by drug companies
as not reliable customers, especially for a product they have not
indicated they want (for a variety of reasons).

The blacks have black schools. If they want an education there is no
reason to let them into white schools. Yep, that's been tried before.


Men have known that forever. We didn't need a psychological study.
The whole doctor process is designed to meet the needs of women and to
hell with men.

Yes, doctors do not offer their services to men in a way that is
acceptable or friendly to men.

How did this happen? After all, doctors are mostly men.

The market that they provide for has been mostly women. Men's needs are
ignored by the medical business like many other businesses.


If you were a drug company, which group would you think more
likely to get a prescription and take their medicine regularly? (BTW,
the advent of viagra and other ED drugs may be changing this statistic
somewhat!)

Yes, the sexist thinking of drug companies is coming around now that
they have tried a product for men. If they had sense they would know
that men are a HUGE market.

I hope more bc choices for men become available. And I hope men make
use of these choices when they do become available. But I'm man
enough to suspect that men will be much more likely to take a pill to
get hard than to remember to take one day after day so they won't get
anyone pregant.

You're bigot enough to keep repeating the same old propaganda crap.

Bob


trifold
www.vasectomy-information.com



--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

trifold wrote:
Bob wrote in message .

Feminists demand power for women to control sex and reproduction.
Feminists want women to have the power to control fertility. Feminists
have lobbied agaisnt research money for men's BC for decades.

Evidence?

What planet did you say you live on?


since it is only relatively recently
that men have been pushing this (and because condoms still make sense
for men who aren't in committed relationships).

Wrong. It's only since the Internet that men have been able to spread
information without it being controlled and silenced.

Controlled and silenced by the woman dominated publishing industry?
Oh yeah, sure. What planet do you live on?

Start with the NY Times with an open feminist policy. Warren Farrell
has documented it in a couple of his books.


Surgical modification is invasive, violent, and not usually reversible.
Don't want kids now does not guarantee the future.

Do you think women would give up female BC methods and rely solely on
surgery? Why then do you suggest that for men?

Just making the point that many fewer men are willing to go through
vasectomy than women are willing to go through a tubal. And tubals
are much more "violent" and invasive procedures.

Vasectomy also makes sex painful for many men for 5 or 10 years. See
"PVP" on your cited web site. Just the probability of turning sex into
pain would be enough to discourage most men -- if the medical industry
were honest enough to tell men about it.

Tubal's don't make sex painful for women.


Black people went quietly to the back of the bus for years too. That
didn't make "white's only" any less bigoted. Neither does men going
along make "female only" any less bigoted.

This comparison of men to blacks is silly and offense. Men have
dominated all power structures in this country and in most of the
world for centuries--and still do.

Your selective bigotry is no less offensive. Female bigotry about men
is just as prejudicial and just as wrong.

Females have dominated all power structures in this country and most of
the world for centuries -- and still do.

Men are considered expendable and are used as guinea
pigs for research that might be fatal.

So you admit most medical research has been based on research w/male
subjects?


Only where the test subjects were likely to die from being used. Like
most feminazi bigots you deliberatly confuse "for" with "on." Medical
research in the 20th century has been dominated by research FOR females.


Any fair minded person could find numerous reasons for this lack of
interest:

Yes, a fair minded person would recognize a century of sexist
discrimination against men.

Men have triumphed heroically, I see. For despite this long century
you describe, they still dominate in most areas of life.

Men dominate by working harder in areas where hard work makes a
difference.

In general, men are paid better for the same work with the same
credentials.

Repeating old LIES shows your prejudice.


But my main point is that men do dominate.

And you are proving that feminazis LIE. Women ensure their domination
by LYING.


If they
dominate (as you admit), it is silly to also claim they are
discrimnated against.

Since women dominate, as you display, it is silly to also claim that
they are discriminated against. Men are discriminated against in every
part of society.


1) Developing a male pill would be expensive;

NOT when compared to money spent on female pills.

Why do you say this? The FOX article itself makes the point that the
demands on a male bc pill are far more complicated, since men make
sperm all the time; and the production of sperm is directly tied to
hormonal activity controlling sex drive (among other things).

Above you posted, "Reports are they are now very close," even with
minimal research budgets. Now you contradict that and claim that it's
far more complicated.

They are close despite the extra complication. Maybe it has taken
longer because of this extra complication (as well as the perception a
male pill would not sell).

LOL. Twist, turn, lie. With almost no research budget for the past
century, once they began doing some research it was learned that the
problem isn't very hard. You're bigotry is showing again.


Are you saying that
only expensive products for females are necessary?

No. Only that drug companies (or any other capitalist enterprise),
when faced between the choice of developing an expensive drug for a
segment of the population that they know will buy the drug because
they are strongly motivated to do so (and because they are good about
going to the doctor and following doctors' orders), and an expensive
drug for a segment of the population that has less incentive to buy,
they will make the safe choice.

IOW: You admit that systematic discrimination in favor of females and
agaisnt men has gone on for most of the 20th century.

I admit that drug companies did not develop a male pill. I think
there are many reasons--and that a feminist conspiracy is not one of
them.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.


And how do you know that men have "less incentive to buy"? Free clue:
Women are not an authority on men's incentives.

Women don't run drug companies, either. Nor do they dominate in the
medical profession.

Women dominate the medical industrial complex's goals and customer base
because women have so much more money to spend and are willing to spend
it being "pampered." You confuse "for" with "by" again. Another
standard feminazi lie.


Getting trapped into 20 years of child support or marriage, etc., by a
female who claims she's "on the pill" has been a major concern of men
since "the pill" was invented.

If men feared this as much as you think, they would use rubbers more.

Cow****. If men have to use rubbers they might as well go home and
watch TV. Most women don't like them either.


I don't follow. But what about non-monogamous men using condoms in
any case? (I believe the FOX article makes this point.)

Why are you still arguing that crude 19th century devices are good
enough for men when women have had large array of BC options developed
by massive funding over the subsequent century. Talk about total bigotry.

I'm just saying drug companies could reasonably conclude men would not
buy the male pill, because they'd use condoms anyway. Condoms,
however 19th century, are the only reliable protection agains STD. So
drug companies have not seen the market value in investing in the male
pill.

You're just trying to deny the fact of a century of total anti-men
discrimination by the medical industrial complex.


Compare the % of men who go to the dr. regularly to the % of women who
do.

A recently published study of the doctor process reported that the
process was psychologically offensive to men, but acceptable for women.

I haven't seen this study. But it seems to support what I have said:
that men don't go to the doctor and so would be seen by drug companies
as not reliable customers, especially for a product they have not
indicated they want (for a variety of reasons).

The blacks have black schools. If they want an education there is no
reason to let them into white schools. Yep, that's been tried before.


Men have known that forever. We didn't need a psychological study.
The whole doctor process is designed to meet the needs of women and to
hell with men.

Yes, doctors do not offer their services to men in a way that is
acceptable or friendly to men.

How did this happen? After all, doctors are mostly men.

The market that they provide for has been mostly women. Men's needs are
ignored by the medical business like many other businesses.


If you were a drug company, which group would you think more
likely to get a prescription and take their medicine regularly? (BTW,
the advent of viagra and other ED drugs may be changing this statistic
somewhat!)

Yes, the sexist thinking of drug companies is coming around now that
they have tried a product for men. If they had sense they would know
that men are a HUGE market.

I hope more bc choices for men become available. And I hope men make
use of these choices when they do become available. But I'm man
enough to suspect that men will be much more likely to take a pill to
get hard than to remember to take one day after day so they won't get
anyone pregant.

You're bigot enough to keep repeating the same old propaganda crap.

Bob


trifold
www.vasectomy-information.com



--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

trifold wrote:
Gini wrote in message ...


====
Perhaps historically (aside from wages), but this has changed dramatically in
the last two decades.


You deny that men in most fields are still paid better than women?

Are you still pushing that old feminazi fiction?



If men
have effective birth control, men can chose whether to have children and can
exercise that choice regardless of the woman's desire to have children. The
woman can now lie about being on birth control ensnaring men into years of
lifestyle support awards. If men have access to BC pills, there will be fewer
births, fewer marriages, less alimony, less child support paid. It may sound
silly/conspiratorial, but I'm not sure the assertion is far off.

Sorry. I'm not buying.
trifold
www.vasectomy-information.com

No of course not. Feminazis won't buy anything that tends toward equal
rights.

Bob



--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

"Bob" wrote in message
...
trifold wrote:
Bob wrote in message
.

Feminists demand power for women to control sex and reproduction.
Feminists want women to have the power to control fertility. Feminists
have lobbied agaisnt research money for men's BC for decades.

Evidence?

What planet did you say you live on?


since it is only relatively recently
that men have been pushing this (and because condoms still make sense
for men who aren't in committed relationships).

Wrong. It's only since the Internet that men have been able to spread
information without it being controlled and silenced.

Controlled and silenced by the woman dominated publishing industry?
Oh yeah, sure. What planet do you live on?

Start with the NY Times with an open feminist policy. Warren Farrell
has documented it in a couple of his books.


Surgical modification is invasive, violent, and not usually reversible.
Don't want kids now does not guarantee the future.

Do you think women would give up female BC methods and rely solely on
surgery? Why then do you suggest that for men?

Just making the point that many fewer men are willing to go through
vasectomy than women are willing to go through a tubal. And tubals
are much more "violent" and invasive procedures.

Vasectomy also makes sex painful for many men for 5 or 10 years. See
"PVP" on your cited web site. Just the probability of turning sex into
pain would be enough to discourage most men -- if the medical industry
were honest enough to tell men about it.

Tubal's don't make sex painful for women.


Black people went quietly to the back of the bus for years too. That
didn't make "white's only" any less bigoted. Neither does men going
along make "female only" any less bigoted.

This comparison of men to blacks is silly and offense. Men have
dominated all power structures in this country and in most of the
world for centuries--and still do.

Your selective bigotry is no less offensive. Female bigotry about men
is just as prejudicial and just as wrong.

Females have dominated all power structures in this country and most of
the world for centuries -- and still do.

Men are considered expendable and are used as guinea
pigs for research that might be fatal.

So you admit most medical research has been based on research w/male
subjects?


Only where the test subjects were likely to die from being used. Like
most feminazi bigots you deliberatly confuse "for" with "on." Medical
research in the 20th century has been dominated by research FOR females.

Apparently, it's not good enough for the government people that women
already live much longer than men. They are bent on increasing the gap even
FURTHER!



Any fair minded person could find numerous reasons for this lack of
interest:

Yes, a fair minded person would recognize a century of sexist
discrimination against men.

Men have triumphed heroically, I see. For despite this long century
you describe, they still dominate in most areas of life.

Men dominate by working harder in areas where hard work makes a
difference.

In general, men are paid better for the same work with the same
credentials.

Repeating old LIES shows your prejudice.


But my main point is that men do dominate.

And you are proving that feminazis LIE. Women ensure their domination
by LYING.


If they
dominate (as you admit), it is silly to also claim they are
discrimnated against.

Since women dominate, as you display, it is silly to also claim that
they are discriminated against. Men are discriminated against in every
part of society.


1) Developing a male pill would be expensive;

NOT when compared to money spent on female pills.

Why do you say this? The FOX article itself makes the point that the
demands on a male bc pill are far more complicated, since men make
sperm all the time; and the production of sperm is directly tied to
hormonal activity controlling sex drive (among other things).

Above you posted, "Reports are they are now very close," even with
minimal research budgets. Now you contradict that and claim that it's
far more complicated.

They are close despite the extra complication. Maybe it has taken
longer because of this extra complication (as well as the perception a
male pill would not sell).

LOL. Twist, turn, lie. With almost no research budget for the past
century, once they began doing some research it was learned that the
problem isn't very hard. You're bigotry is showing again.


Are you saying that
only expensive products for females are necessary?

No. Only that drug companies (or any other capitalist enterprise),
when faced between the choice of developing an expensive drug for a
segment of the population that they know will buy the drug because
they are strongly motivated to do so (and because they are good about
going to the doctor and following doctors' orders), and an expensive
drug for a segment of the population that has less incentive to buy,
they will make the safe choice.

IOW: You admit that systematic discrimination in favor of females and
agaisnt men has gone on for most of the 20th century.

I admit that drug companies did not develop a male pill. I think
there are many reasons--and that a feminist conspiracy is not one of
them.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.


And how do you know that men have "less incentive to buy"? Free clue:
Women are not an authority on men's incentives.

Women don't run drug companies, either. Nor do they dominate in the
medical profession.

Women dominate the medical industrial complex's goals and customer base
because women have so much more money to spend and are willing to spend
it being "pampered." You confuse "for" with "by" again. Another
standard feminazi lie.


Getting trapped into 20 years of child support or marriage, etc., by a
female who claims she's "on the pill" has been a major concern of men
since "the pill" was invented.

If men feared this as much as you think, they would use rubbers more.

Cow****. If men have to use rubbers they might as well go home and
watch TV. Most women don't like them either.


I don't follow. But what about non-monogamous men using condoms in
any case? (I believe the FOX article makes this point.)

Why are you still arguing that crude 19th century devices are good
enough for men when women have had large array of BC options developed
by massive funding over the subsequent century. Talk about total
bigotry.

I'm just saying drug companies could reasonably conclude men would not
buy the male pill, because they'd use condoms anyway. Condoms,
however 19th century, are the only reliable protection agains STD. So
drug companies have not seen the market value in investing in the male
pill.

You're just trying to deny the fact of a century of total anti-men
discrimination by the medical industrial complex.


Compare the % of men who go to the dr. regularly to the % of women who
do.

A recently published study of the doctor process reported that the
process was psychologically offensive to men, but acceptable for women.

I haven't seen this study. But it seems to support what I have said:
that men don't go to the doctor and so would be seen by drug companies
as not reliable customers, especially for a product they have not
indicated they want (for a variety of reasons).

The blacks have black schools. If they want an education there is no
reason to let them into white schools. Yep, that's been tried before.


Men have known that forever. We didn't need a psychological study.
The whole doctor process is designed to meet the needs of women and to
hell with men.

Yes, doctors do not offer their services to men in a way that is
acceptable or friendly to men.

How did this happen? After all, doctors are mostly men.

The market that they provide for has been mostly women. Men's needs are
ignored by the medical business like many other businesses.


If you were a drug company, which group would you think more
likely to get a prescription and take their medicine regularly? (BTW,
the advent of viagra and other ED drugs may be changing this statistic
somewhat!)

Yes, the sexist thinking of drug companies is coming around now that
they have tried a product for men. If they had sense they would know
that men are a HUGE market.

I hope more bc choices for men become available. And I hope men make
use of these choices when they do become available. But I'm man
enough to suspect that men will be much more likely to take a pill to
get hard than to remember to take one day after day so they won't get
anyone pregant.

You're bigot enough to keep repeating the same old propaganda crap.

Bob


trifold
www.vasectomy-information.com



--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

Okay can someone tell me why is it so important to have a numerous
amount
of birth control? You only need one. Just use a condom. You are
protected against babies and STDs.

Pammie1

Two words: "failure rate".
Phil #3
--------------

What's that Phil the failure rate of men actually using their bc? You
know you can always Abstain from sex.

Pammie1

In a way, I can agree with you however, the current support and custody
system does not allow non-custodial parents to support their children.
The
current C$ guidelines for any state demand more than is necessary but
fail
to insure that it will only be used as support for the children.

Historically, more men actually *want* to support their children than
don't
by a large margin. They just don't want to help support their ex-wife in
the
process and that's where the whole process gets gummed up. Men are
removed
from their children's lives except as a visitor without legal rights to
decide what the money should be used toward while giving the ex-spouse
total
control over the unaccountable money.

I suppose some mothers very well may, and probably do, use C$ only to
support the children but I know for a fact that some do not.
Phil #3
--------------

Phil #3 do you realize that you will hardly ever SEE how the Child support
money will be spent? Okay you have the obvious new clothes, new shoes or
whatever for the kid. Child support money is used to pay the
rent/mortgage to keep a roof over your kid(s) head, lights, water, gas,
day care, vehicle maintence (to go grocery shopping and anything esle),
food and these are just the basics. My kid likes to go to the fun park.
I am out of $40 for 3 hours of fun alone. What are you suggesting women
do with the support money? I find taking care of the household is the
proper way to spend the money, and of course build a College savings for
the kid. Child support is there to provide for the kid as if you are
living in that household. Now if your EX is evicted from her home then
you will know that she isn't using the child support money properly.

Pammie1

"Pammie1" southerngirl@The Real Thing wrote in message
lkaboutparenting.com...
Okay can someone tell me why is it so important to have a numerous
amount
of birth control? You only need one. Just use a condom. You are
protected against babies and STDs.

Pammie1

Two words: "failure rate".
Phil #3
--------------

What's that Phil the failure rate of men actually using their bc? You
know you can always Abstain from sex.

Pammie1

Is that really the best you got? You've become boring and obviously unable
to comprehend the thread, the question asked or the answer.
Try again, get a man to explain it to you if necessary. Here's a hint,
condoms have a failure rate, meaning that it is far less than perfect for
birth control. Now, with that new knowledge, the question was: "Okay can
someone tell me why is it so important to have a numerous amount of birth
control?", to which the answer is, in relation to condoms, "failure rate" or
in other words, they don't work all that well overall.
I don't need to worry about impregnating anyone anymore, so I think I'll
pass on your advice, if you don't mind.
Phil #3

"trifold" wrote in message
om...
"Pammie1" southerngirl@The Real Thing wrote in message news:
Okay can someone tell me why is it so important to have a numerous
amount
of birth control? You only need one. Just use a condom. You are
protected against babies and STDs.

Pammie1

Condoms don't feel good. In non-monagamous relationships, they are a
necessary evil. In monagamous ones, I prefer to go without. There
are ways to do this, most putting the burden on the woman. There is a
risk she may cheat and try to get pregnant. But I wouldn't form a
monagamous relationship with a woman who would cheat. If I suspected
she would cheat, I'd go back to rubbers.

How would you know, in advance, if a woman, or a man for that matter, would
cheat?
Phil #3


I'm happy to say, vasectomy has put all that behind me. (And that I'm
happy my wife no longer has to put up with the pill.)

trifold
www.vasectomy-information.com

I heard it with my own ears. I was listening to Judge Judy at work
(TV/Radio). This lady with 3 kids was suing an ex Boyfriend for rent he
accured. Anyway the ex was mad because she didn't work. At the end of
the show she made the comment, "I don't have to work I get child support."
I fell out laughing (because this is what we have been talkig about).
Okay you do have those women who solely depend on their support check and
those who support sorry men. All I have to say to the men is you are
getting screwed a little. All you have to do is play it safe and protect
yourselves. Child support is always going to be around so you might as
well get use to it. I am all for child support if it is being used in the
correct manner, but if it isn't then that's when I feel like the man is
getting screwed.

Pammie1