If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Choice for Men Entertainment
KEEP YOUR PANTS ON! (ON ALL DAY, ON ALL NIGHT) (C) 1994-1995,2001 There are times when, as a man, I just have to hang my head between my knees and weep with joy when I contemplate my reproductive rights. We have no recourse or remedy in cases of accidental pregnancy, if we're lied to about contraception, or even if we're raped. I'm not making this up. While women's reproductive rights have been recognized since Roe v. Wade in 1973, it has come to my attention that a certain other gender has never had the right to "choice", despite the fact that sexism has been shown, by scientific laboratory tests, to be bad. Since 1973, millions(1) of women whose birth control failed, or who didn't use birth control, or whatever, have had abortions. How many men have had abortions? None! Why? (Besides the obvious I mean). Because the laws don't give men a reproductive choice. As you know if you follow world events, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Yet our lawmakers, who apparently haven't read newspapers or the Constitution yet, believe women should have a choice and men should not. It gets worse. Take the famous "Frank S." case(2) for example. The court ordered Frank to pay child support even though Pam lied to him about using birth control. Men can't use fraud as a defense. I'm not making this up. This demonstrates the "No" means "No" principle. When a man says "No" to parenthood, he really means 'Ignore me, I have "No" reproductive rights'. And it's not just Frank. Ask Shane Seyer(3). Despite the fact that he was just twelve years old and too young to legally consent to sex, he was forced into parenthood by his baby sitter, and a court is making him pay child support. The February 12th 1995 issue of the St. Louis Missouri Post-Dispatch had article about another babysitter who forced a boy into fatherhood. This brings up the burning issue: did the boys' parents raise their allowances to pay child support? And it's not just Frank and Shane. Lots of men are forced into parenthood. Although Frank and Shane's cases are worse than most, you can bet that other guys want a choice too. How many? According to our own federal government, when its not busy deciding which picture to put on the Elvis stamp, over 500,000(4) paternities are established each year. "Paternities established" is a secret code known only to the government, which can be translated as "dragged into court and forced to be a father". 500,000 is about one a minute, or the number of people living in Austin Texas. But this isn't the whole picture. Paternities are only established for unwed mothers. Husbands can dispense with the courtroom formality, proceed directly to forced parenthood, do not pass go and don't collect $200. Other government figures show that one out of four children are born to unwed mothers and preliminary data indicates that 33%(5) of the four million(6) U.S. births each year may be unintended by fathers. At this point many reasonable readers might think that the best way to avoid parenthood would be for men to "keep their pants on". On all day, on all night, and on in the shower. Case law knows this as "the pants defense". Some men would probably be willing to wear two, three or even four pairs of pants, whatever it takes, if it worked. Armed with this advance information, the determined men and women responsible for men's (current lack of) reproductive rights have found more ways to force men into parenthood, and a way that doesn't even require the "father" to have sex! I'm not making this up either. Ask Rodney Darnell(7). Officials in Iowa have begun garnishing his paycheck on behalf of a child with a different last name. A DNA test proving that he is not the child's father was ruled "irrelevant", as was the statement by the child's mother that he's not the father. Ultimately, there's the taxpayer, paying for children on welfare that he's never even met. He stares off into space, thinking that this is yet another case of our government serving him in a way he'd never have thought of without the aid of a big bottle of booze. Child support isn't cheap. Count on about 1/4 of take home pay for eighteen years. Maybe guys should plea bargain to spend all of only four years in jail and let it go at that. That's the kind of men we are. Don't even think about the guys who are forced to pay for twins. I've decided to withhold their names pending notification of next of kin. So our laws are letting fraud, mistaken identity, and non consensual sex force men into parenthood. Actually, I'm exaggerating. It turns out that our laws DO give men a reproductive choice. men can always choose between paying and going to jail. If you think men are being treated as scapegoats, I'm sorry, you obviously have a bad attitude, and will most likely never be satisfied with the real choice that men have now. It's called "Men's Choice", and it's a hair color from Clairol. I'm not making this up. It's not just men who want to change the law. So does a former president of the National Organization of Women (NOW), Karen DeCrow. She was Frank's attorney and said "Justice therefore dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support. Or, put another way, autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice." And it's not just men and Karen. My own survey found that more women want to give men a choice than do men!(8) That's right. I, myself, asked 102 people if men should have a choice, and more women said yes. Maybe women know just how important choice is, and want their brothers and sons to have it. And it's not just men and women. Its our environment. Too many births means overpopulation, pollution and deforestation. And it's not just humanity and the environment. This is also the opinion of Men's Rights Inc. and the National Center for Men, which want to reform our paternity laws. So if Frank gets deceived again, he would have some recourse or remedy and Pam can do what she wants, which may well involve a career robbing banks. Or, Pam could: 1. have an abortion. 2. put the child up for adoption. 3. raise the child on her own, without any involvement or interference from the father. Unfortunately, at this point in time, people are treating reproductive rights as a matter of personal taste. Person A may think reproductive freedom is a fundamental right, as women have enjoyed since 1973, yet person B might think all men are philandering scum who should be forced into parenthood, and, if necessary, sell that extra kidney to pay child support. But does this mean person B is wrong? Of course not. It simply means person B is half-witted and should not be permitted to operate machinery. Of course I'm kidding, machinery will never be THAT easy to operate. My survey also showed that only about a third of us think men shouldn't have a choice. Sheesh, what's this country coming to? Emancipation in the 1800's, suffrage and choice for women in the 1900's, the next thing you know, men might get a reproductive choice too. Of course we may all be flying around in the Jetson's space ships by the time that happens. On the other hand, if you don't want to wait that long, join a free email based list server dedicated to legalizing Choice for Men. References 1. Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, (212) 248-1111 2. 5/3/83 L. Pamela P. v Frank S., Court of Appeals of New York: 462 N.Y.S.2d 819 (Ct.App. 1983) 3. STATE of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen HERMESMANN, Appellee, v. Shane SEYER, a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No. 67,978. Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993. 4. Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, 1992 Congressional Report 5. DRAFT Unintended Births: Women's Attitudes vis-a-vis their Male Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990, Joyce C. Abma and Linda J. Piccinino, NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782, (301) 436-8731 6. Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, (212) 248-1111 7. Des Moines Register, Jan94 and News of the Weird, March 11, 1994 8. Survey conducted by Kingsley G. Morse Jr., October 1992, National Center for Men, P.O. Box 555 Old Bethpage, NY 11804 (516) 942-2020. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I agree with the Pants Defence. And this guy who is paying child
support for a child who is not theirs, and proved so through DNA. Well I personally think there was some other reason. They don't just randomly grab some guy off the street and say you must now pay child support. He was probably in a position to be the father figure in the childs life, and had raised the child as his own for a few years. Now if the woman lied to him from the begining, then shame on her, but in this day and age I would support the idea of Paternities tests being done as simply a formality. Then if the guy is not the father, he has the option of leaving then, or sticking aroud and paying the consquences for his actions. The case of the 12 year old boy... Well that to me is just simply wrong, and I hope the woman was charged with Stat rape. However... your right in saying that this is the worse case senario, and not the norm. For me the idea of a woman telling you they are on Birth Control, and then later finding out they are not through way of a pregnacy. Well I equate that to going out drinking for the night, and then climbing in the car with some guy who says he has not been drinking, and then complaining when he gets into a drunk driver accident, and causing you harm. As men we need to set ourselves up for the fact that there are devious women out there, and we must in turn simply find a way to ensure our sperm is not released to someone that we don't want it released to. If you as a man have sex.. deposit your sperm in her.. you have pretty much written off all writes to it. If you were that concerned about the issue you would from the start pratice the "Keep Your Pants On Defence" And I can pretty much garantee you the problem would vanish with unwanted pregnacies in your life. Now I do agree somewhat with the idea of men having some say in reproductive rights. But at this current juncture that right does not exsist. I would instead focus your attack on teaching our young men how to avoid this problem in the first place. Allow them to learn from the Horror stories you can all come up with. If you cut off the supply line of sperm for reproduction. Guess what it doesnt happen. And the problem for the most will start to slowly go away. And we would cure 2 problems. Single Mothers unable to affoard a child on their own. And also the complaining of a man after the fact when they figure out the contraceptive they used failed. SpiderHam77 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I agree that the case concerning the 12 year old is certainly insane.
But when it comes to: So if Frank gets deceived again, he would have some recourse or remedy and Pam can do what she wants, which may well involve a career robbing banks. If Frank is deceived, isn't it Frank's fault? Every half wit is well aware that sex can lead to pregnancy and birth control can fail, or people can lie. No doubt about it, Pam is unethical for lying to Frank, but Frank is rather naive for refusing to take on the responsibility of using his own birth control instead of relying on Pam's word. Frank was too negligent to protect himself and then he wants out of the repurcussions for his negligent behavior. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... I agree that the case concerning the 12 year old is certainly insane. But when it comes to: So if Frank gets deceived again, he would have some recourse or remedy and Pam can do what she wants, which may well involve a career robbing banks. If Frank is deceived, isn't it Frank's fault? Every half wit is well aware that sex can lead to pregnancy and birth control can fail, or people can lie. No doubt about it, Pam is unethical for lying to Frank, but Frank is rather naive for refusing to take on the responsibility of using his own birth control instead of relying on Pam's word. Frank was too negligent to protect himself and then he wants out of the repurcussions for his negligent behavior. So . . . in the Jim Crow days, every half-wit knew that blacks were at serious risk of suffering injury from whites, including being lynched, and they could avoid the risks by staying in their own neighborhoods and minimizing their contacts with whites. No doubt the whites were unethical for indulging in this unpleasant behavior, but the blacks should have been responsible and stayed out of harm's way. If they didn't, they were negligent, right? However, I seem to remember that this line of reasoning didn't cut very much ice in the1960s and 70s when civil rights laws were being enacted. Most people said that measures should be taken to ensure that the whites who lynched blacks could no longer do so. And I don't remember that there was much sympathy for the view that blacks who didn't protect themselves against lynching were negligent, and had only themselves to blame. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I think there is a rather large difference between lynching and
consentual sex. In your instance, a person is a victim of unwanted violence. In the instance of Pam and Frank, Frank consented to having sex with Pam, and neglected to utilize birth control, placing the responsibility with Pam. We are discussing an act in which both people willfully participate, in which both people are aware that there are repurcussions if they fail to protect themselves. That's a far cry from lynching. In truth, Frank probably wanted to believe Pam so that he did not have to utilize a condom, thus heightening his personal pleasure. Then negligent Frank wants to believe that despite his hedonistic and irresponsible choice, he is 100% victim. I don't accept his argument at all. Again, I don't doubt that he was taken advantage of by Pam, but I don't think that Frank is 100% innocent here. He is at fault partly for not protecting himself, knowing full well the more protection utilized, the less chance of pregnancy. As a woman I know that at anytime a man can use a condom and he could have put it on wrong, it could be damaged, etc. So instead of entrusting my reproductive future to a partner, I take responsibility by utilizing my own form of birth control. Even still, when engaged in the act I am fully aware that birth control measures can fail, that IS the risk of engaging in sex. Refusing to take responsibility for my birth control does not allow me a scape goat from accidental conception. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... I think there is a rather large difference between lynching and consentual sex. In your instance, a person is a victim of unwanted violence. In the instance of Pam and Frank, Frank consented to having sex with Pam, and neglected to utilize birth control, placing the responsibility with Pam. We are discussing an act in which both people willfully participate, in which both people are aware that there are repurcussions if they fail to protect themselves. That's a far cry from lynching. In truth, Frank probably wanted to believe Pam so that he did not have to utilize a condom, thus heightening his personal pleasure. Then negligent Frank wants to believe that despite his hedonistic and irresponsible choice, he is 100% victim. I don't accept his argument at all. Again, I don't doubt that he was taken advantage of by Pam, but I don't think that Frank is 100% innocent here. He is at fault partly for not protecting himself, knowing full well the more protection utilized, the less chance of pregnancy. As a woman I know that at anytime a man can use a condom and he could have put it on wrong, it could be damaged, etc. So instead of entrusting my reproductive future to a partner, I take responsibility by utilizing my own form of birth control. Even still, when engaged in the act I am fully aware that birth control measures can fail, that IS the risk of engaging in sex. Refusing to take responsibility for my birth control does not allow me a scape goat from accidental conception. Perhaps you could give me a hint for dealing with the following conversation then: "Why are you using a condom? I'm on the pill." What should I say? a) I think you may be lying about your contraception. I'm afraid I just don't trust you. b) I think you may have an STD. c) I think I may have an STD. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... I think there is a rather large difference between lynching and consentual sex. In your instance, a person is a victim of unwanted violence. In the instance of Pam and Frank, Frank consented to having sex with Pam, and neglected to utilize birth control, placing the responsibility with Pam. We are discussing an act in which both people willfully participate, in which both people are aware that there are repurcussions if they fail to protect themselves. That's a far cry from lynching. Since PAM is the only one of the two who CAN get pregnant, logically doesn't the primary responsibility fall on her? Since she has SOLE and ABSOLUTE control over any result of the recreational intercourse, then it should stand to reason that she bear the same ABSOLUTE responsibility for the results. Since the law of the land is essentially that she can terminate any product of the night's activities with Frank having absolutely NO say in the mater, or she can place the child for adoption WITHOUT Frank's consent, or she can have the child. In short she reaps ALL the legal benes and HE gets to PAY..................................... What does that sound like? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... I think there is a rather large difference between lynching and consentual sex. In your instance, a person is a victim of unwanted violence. In the instance of Pam and Frank, Frank consented to having sex with Pam, and neglected to utilize birth control, placing the responsibility with Pam. We are discussing an act in which both people willfully participate, in which both people are aware that there are repurcussions if they fail to protect themselves. That's a far cry from lynching. In truth, Frank probably wanted to believe Pam so that he did not have to utilize a condom, thus heightening his personal pleasure. Then negligent Frank wants to believe that despite his hedonistic and irresponsible choice, he is 100% victim. I don't accept his argument at all. Again, I don't doubt that he was taken advantage of by Pam, but I don't think that Frank is 100% innocent here. He is at fault partly for not protecting himself, knowing full well the more protection utilized, the less chance of pregnancy. As a woman I know that at anytime a man can use a condom and he could have put it on wrong, it could be damaged, etc. So instead of entrusting my reproductive future to a partner, I take responsibility by utilizing my own form of birth control. Even still, when engaged in the act I am fully aware that birth control measures can fail, that IS the risk of engaging in sex. Refusing to take responsibility for my birth control does not allow me a scape goat from accidental conception. But conception DOES NOT EQUAL birth. Only a woman, by her sole and unilateral choices, can cause a birth to happen. Women should be responsibly for their sole and unilateral choices. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
D) Better to be safe then sorry. I don't want to conceive, so the
extra protection is for the aid of us both. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Since PAM is the only one of the two who CAN get pregnant, logically doesn't
the primary responsibility fall on her? Since Pam requires FRANK'S sperm to get pregnant, logically, isn't the resposibility halved? Since she has SOLE and ABSOLUTE control over any result of the recreational intercourse, then it should stand to reason that she bear the same ABSOLUTE responsibility for the results. There won't be a "result" Pam will have "sole and absolute" control over if Frank does not deposit his sperm in Pam. Since the law of the land is essentially that she can terminate any product of the night's activities with Frank having absolutely NO say in the mater, or she can place the child for adoption WITHOUT Frank's consent, or she can have the child. In short she reaps ALL the legal benes and HE gets to PAY..................................... A child can not be placed for adoption without consent, which is precisely why father's can retain custody of their children who were relinquished without their permission. What does that sound like? It sounds like the best we can do with what the crappy human condition we inherited. Women, having the ability to gestate, have more legal say over the fate of a pregnancy because it compromises her autonomy. If it were men who gestated the shoe would be on the other foot. It is true, and yes, biologically insulting that a man has no say over the fate of his fetus while gestating but he DOES have say when conceiving. Which is why I don't accept the "I was duped" excuse. As a women, I WISH men could par-take in the horrid experience of morning sickness, labor and delivery. I would rather pay 18 years of child support then have to deal with the pain of giving birth ever again. Both genders take their hits in the mating game... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Choice for Men Entertainment | Kingsley G. Morse Jr. (Delete the D) | Child Support | 2 | March 19th 05 04:52 PM |
Choice for Men Entertainment | Delete the D | Child Support | 0 | March 19th 04 10:55 AM |
Choice for Men Entertainment | Delete the D | Child Support | 2 | February 19th 04 05:17 PM |
Choice for Men Entertainment | Delete the D | Child Support | 0 | October 19th 03 10:55 AM |
Choice for Men Entertainment | Delete the D | Child Support | 0 | September 19th 03 10:55 AM |