Columns May 4, 2011 at 4:00 am

The Ex Files


Backyard Bombardier @180 mentions "a young lady who wasn't that interested in anything romantic with me - unless she'd been drinking."

What do you mean by bringing this personal example up? That everyone acts badly when drunk? If you had sex with the woman who only wants you when she's drunk, then who felt bad in the morning โ€“ you, or her, or both? nobody? What does go on in a man's mind when a woman he's interested in starts getting drunk and flirty? Are you saying that men's sexual urges mean it is not reasonable to expect them to hold back when a woman offers sex, even if the man knows she will regret it the next day? (Serious questions, here.)

dameedna@195 notes that a woman who has been drinking is sometimes "actively seeking [sex] they regret the next day."

If women get so much hornier when drunk, and men cannot be expected to keep from fucking them under those circumstances, then we have an answer to Suzy's question @192 about "why should women have to be afraid of having a drink in a mixed gender setting?" Well, let's say 3 or 4 drinks. One drink is probably not the problem.
KateRose@198 So your school lecturer said: "Rape is when a man has sex with a woman without any evidence that she wants sex besides her being naked in bed with him." Is that right? If not, please provide the "ridiculous definition of rape" in the form of a definition, so we can discuss it.

We do agree on what advice to give girls about drinking & socializing with guys. Do you agree, also, that guys should understand that a girl naked in bed is not thereby consenting to having sex, and may be thinking they are just going to make out?
@JA5: Actually, you can have all the sex you want. The only thing you can't do, if you don't want to risk becoming a father, is put your sperm in someone's vagina.

Fuck your heart out with a (properly used) condom. Enjoy all the oral you can handle. Get hand jobs until the cows come home.

Just be careful where you put your sperm.
@208: Glad to answer you:

"What do you mean by bringing this personal example up?"

I'm just disclosing some of my own history, which I am aware will bias how I look at this situation.

"That everyone acts badly when drunk?"

Not at all. Just that there are some people who act one way when sober and another when drunk. I don't think CL acted badly; I think she did something while drunk that she regretted when sober. That's not bad; that's human.

"If you had sex with the woman who only wants you when she's drunk, then who felt bad in the morning โ€“ you, or her, or both? nobody?"

I didn't have sex with her. I'm guessing that I was older and more experienced than CL's hookup was when this happened. I had enough maturity and self-respect that I didn't want to have sex with someone who only wanted me when her judgement and inhibitions were impaired. It also helped that I wasn't usually drunk when she made the offers.

"What does go on in a man's mind when a woman he's interested in starts getting drunk and flirty? Are you saying that men's sexual urges mean it is not reasonable to expect them to hold back when a woman offers sex, even if the man knows she will regret it the next day?"

I think a man should be able to hold back, but that requires exercising some judgement and self-restraint. The example I was thinking of from my life happened during my forties; if it had happened during my twenties I probably would have gone for it. I'm not a bad person, and I wasn't back then either. But I am human. Temptation is... tempting. Throw some booze into the mix and people don't always do what they should.
@Backyard Bombardier/#210

Condoms aren't perfect, even when perfectly used. Even vasectomies have failure rates comparable to The Pill (the vas deferens can re-grow).

Why are women the only sex allowed any say what happens with an unplanned pregnancy? Why are they allowed to demand child support? They can even do that when it's proven the man wasn't the father.

Women can always choose to avoid all responsibility. Men currently have zero rights once an unplanned pregnancy occurs. Even if they took precautions. Even if they were deceived.

This is sexism (a sexism that women like though). Men should be able to disclaim parental rights, then the woman can choose whether to abort, adopt-away/abandon, or raise. That would at least give the man 2/3rds of the rights that women have.
@205 JA5

"Don't have sex? That's your answer to sexism and unequal rights?"
No, that's my answer to your assertion that "a guy never gets any choice." You clearly have a huge problem with accepting the responsibility for children that you father. I'm saying don't have sex until you accept the possibility of a pregnancy that you will not have control over. That's a foolproof way to make a choice to not have kids. Yes, it's extreme but you are an extreme case. Men in general are not faced with the "problem" that you have.

If you want kids then go have them with a willing person. That's your choice as well. Carelessly impregnating random women doesn't entitle you to decide for them whether they will give birth.

"Are you a pro-choice woman? Too bad, you don't deserve that right, don't have sex. Do you like to vote or own property? Too bad, you don't deserve that right, move to another country. Upset about unequal pay? Marry a rich man."
This is all nonsense. No one is denying you reproductive rights. See above.

"Women have complete freedom to give up responsibility. They can abort, adopt-away, or abandon. Men have zero likewise freedoms."
None of the things you list involves giving up responsibility. Men can and do abandon all the time.
I am a pro-feminist, anti-rape woman, but I can't fathom how #1 was raped. Please let's not allow the legal system to turn sex into a ridiculous version of "Mother, May I?" May I kiss you, touch your breasts, rub your clit, penetrate you? Those of us who have actually had sex on this planet know that consent is granted through body language, not always verbally. If both people are too drunk to be able to think quickly enough to say 'No' or zip up their pants, that's the outcome of both their decisions to abuse alcohol, but it's not a crime. It's not that easy to penetrate an unwilling woman without the use of force. Even at my wettest, hottest, most eager moment, I have to assist penetration by opening my legs, lifting my hips, shifting my weight, etc. If a woman changes her mind in the heat of the moment, it's her responsibility to make that clear with her words and body language, and it's the man's responsibility to honor her decisiรณn.But If she's too drunk to know/verbaluze!show what she wants, that's not his fault, unless he has drugged her against her will. So please, let's not trivialize the topic of real rape, conceprualuze women as passive idiots, or turn the wonder of sex into a legal contract that has to be reaffirmed every two minutes and/ or when moving from base to base.
JA5, the only point in the situation where the woman has control is when it involves only her body. The man can control the situation while he is having sex- by using birth control properly, or by choosing to have other forms of sex besides vaginal if he 100% doesn't want to risk a pregnancy. Don't try and make it sound like there is nothing men can do, that they are poor little victims and women are sucking out their sperm in while they sleep with their demon vaginas.
And if a woman gets pregnant and decides to have a baby, why do you think she is the only one in control of the situation once the baby is born and separate from her body? The father has parental rights then, the mother can't put it up for adoption without the father's permission. And mother's have the 'complete freedom to abandon' their children? What? Abandoning a child isn't legal.
It sucks that human bodies are set up so that women have to deal with 9 months of the reproductive process compared to only a brief moment for men. But if the options for a man to avoid creating children he doesn't want are 1. Taking more responsibility in birth control and not having riskier sexual encounters, or 2. Forcing another person to submit partial control of her body to him, the only reasonable answer is the first.
@209 EricaP
I wish that I could remember the exact wording that was used in the presentation. Unfortunately, having been more than a decade removed, I'm not able to.
Maybe "definition" was the inappropriate word. I apologize for that. I was using it as a way of stating that the way people in some of the other posts defined rape for themselves.
To answer your question: "Do you agree, also, that guys should understand that a girl naked in bed is not thereby consenting to having sex, and may be thinking they are just going to make out?"
Yes. I absolutely believe that a man should not have higher expectations in a situation like that. No one should assume.
More or less, my point is, that, when entering a situation with another person (sexual or not), you should not assume what will come of it. You can't expect a girl to have sex with you just because she's naked in bed with you, and you can't assume a man doesn't consider sex a possibility if you are naked in bed with him (of course gender pronouns can be changed to fit whatever scenario). Simply put, don't expect them to know your wants/needs unless you state them.
@211 Thanks for explaining. Both people were human & young & made mistakes. Hopefully, both people will learn from their mistakes, before they cause too much damage to third parties.

@216 - agreed - people should learn that their assumptions will often get them in trouble. Also, drugs/alcohol can do that too :-)

@JA5: Yes, yes, condoms aren't perfect, vasectomies aren't perfect, women lie about birth control, etc. etc. Sexual intercourse will always bring with it a risk of unplanned pregnancy. As a man, you (and I) have options to reduce the risk.

Every human behaviour carries risks. I risk my life every time I board a plane, or get in my car, or step in the shower. As a rational human being, I take steps to mitigate these risks. Some behaviours carry risks that are too severe for me to take, even with mitigation, which is why I don't take them.

Jesus. Man up. If you want to have sex, know the risks, and either accept the risks, mitigate them, and go for it, or don't have sex.
@214 "It's not that easy to penetrate an unwilling woman without the use of force."

See @187. Trust me, under the right circumstances, men can suddenly penetrate a woman before she knows what is happening.
@Mr. J/#213

>None of the things you list involves giving up responsibility.

I think you need to re-read. If a woman decides to abort, she has removed any responsibility upon herself to raise a child. If she [legally] "abandons" the baby at a hospital/fire dept/etc, she has removed any responsibility upon herself to raise a child. If she puts it out for adoption, she has removed any responsibility upon herself to raise a child.

Women have rights to give up responsibility all through pregnancy, and even after birth. Men have no rights from the moment of conception.

>No one is denying you reproductive rights.

Yes, the law is. Read the above 2 sentences.

>You clearly have a huge problem with accepting the responsibility for children that you father.

No, I have a problem that legally-enshrined sexism says I get no choice from the moment of conception, while women retain choice even after birth.

>Yes, it's extreme but you are an extreme case.

I'm not extreme at all. I have sex. My partners & I agree on b.c. I haven't had any unplanned pregnancies in my past.

>Men in general are not faced with the "problem" that you have.

They all are. However most are sheep that accept legal sexism.
its guys like #1 that give us a bad name. most guys are not like that! even the dirty ones. sounds like teenager / early 20s thing. i hope.

>the only point in the situation where the woman has control is when it involves only her body.

No, she has control over the next 18yrs of the biological father's life (if he didn't want a child), and over his potential baby (if he did want it). And she retains decision-making control all through pregnancy, after birth, and for the next 18yrs. The man has virtually no options from the moment of conception.

>The man can control the situation while he is having sex- by using birth control properly

Properly used, condoms still fail. Vasectomies have failure rates nearly as high as The Pill (due to the vas deferens re-growing). Also, some women lie about using b.c. Should a man never trust his partner?

>And if a woman gets pregnant and decides to have a baby, why do you think she is the only one in control of the situation once the baby is born and separate from her body?

The father has limited rights, after the baby is born. He never had any option to avoid raising a child, from the moment of conception, while she has many.

>And mother's have the 'complete freedom to abandon' their children? What? Abandoning a child isn't legal.

Yes, it is, in the entire U.S., at hospitals, fire depts, etc. Read about Safe Haven/Baby Moses laws.

You entire post shows you aren't aware how unequal men's & women's rights are here.
@Backyard Bombardier/218

The risk you talk about is artificially imposed by sexist laws. Maybe you meekly accept sexism, I prefer to see society move toward equal rights for all.
@223: No. The risk I talk about is imposed by biology. When I put my sperm into a woman's vagina, she may become pregnant. If she does, I have responsibilities as a father.

You appear to wish to put your sperm into vaginas without consideration of your responsibilities as a result of that choice.

If you are truly concerned about "equal rights for all," I could suggest a few other areas that are more in need of attention than this one.
Others have touched on this, and I may have missed it, 'cause damn, this is a long thread, but, while the hypothetical question posed in the first question is interesting, I think I look more at her reasons for asking it. The answer about informing a sexual partner about an abortion/pregnancy scare is one thing, and leaving aside the rape question (not that the rape question isn't important or that rape and what constitutes it shouldn't be discussed), it seems like they were both interested in each other, but since he had a girlfriend that he doesn't seem to have been willing to dump, they decided to be "friends." "Friends" with sexual tension. I wonder if part of her "freak-out" after this incident occurred was her wondering if they should tell the gf, which, if he wasn't in an open relationship, or one where he had permission, would definitely be a reason he would stop talking to her. I can see there being many many phone calls from her to him and I see that being hard to cover-up. Not that he doesn't seem like a jack-hole, but she was hanging out, presumptively alone (or at least without the gf) in such a situation that she could "easily climb into a car with him." He already knew, I think way before that point, that she was "that type of girl." The type of girl who will hang out with another girl's boyfriend with whom she has at least some sexual attraction knowingly (this is not a comment on the sex part, more a comment on the his opinion of her part).
While informing a sexual partner of a pregnancy scare can be a good thing, for all the reasons Dan lists (bullet flying by), I think that's something this girl doesn't need to hear. What she wants is this guy to talk to her again, she wants closure, and maybe to drive a wedge between him and the girlfriend (assuming she's still in the picture). He obviously wants nothing more to do with her, maybe because once he had sex with her the fun was over, maybe because he feels bad about it, maybe because the gf caught on and he wants to move on from it. Maybe he's just a douche. But the best thing for her to do right now is to forget it, forget him, and not keep running after him for attention. She is not pregnant, and, from what we know in the letter, hasn't contracted any STDs, it's time to just let that go.
@224 Backyard Bombardier

It seems that what JA5, in his absolutist mindset, is really concerned about is his lack of total control over every step of the reproductive process, even the ones governed by nature. That and having to part with money for the scores of kids he is forced to bring into the world.
@Backyard Bombardier/224

So you're fine that sexist law gives women rights to choose to avoid responsibility (they can abort, or adopt-away/legally-abandon), but that men get no similar choice. You can choose to accept sexism, I prefer to see society move toward equal rights for all. The laws should change, men should be allowed to disclaim a child before birth (and women would still continue to have the choice even after birth).
@Mr. J/226

I'm only concerned about the complete lack of control due to sexist laws, which are artificial constructs, not laws of nature. Sexist law gives women rights to choose to avoid responsibility (they can abort, or adopt-away/legally-abandon), but men get no similar choice. The laws should change, men should be allowed to disclaim a child before birth (and women would still continue to have the choice even after birth).
@227: Yes, I am fine with laws that permit a woman freedom of choice over her body, and that require men to accept responsibility for their choices.

The alternative places all the responsibility on the woman. That is sexist.
And to @228, maybe I need to shout it:


For fuck's sake. Exercise some goddamn restraint if you are so damn worried about being made to accept that you are responsible for what you do with your dick.

Have you been visited by a succubus or what? Why the rage against women and children? You have yet to express the slightest recognition of women and children as human beings deserving of love. You're just all about your desire to dump the kid if you want to, all the while howling about other people's supposed lack of accountability.

Having the child is not the only thing that constitutes responsibility. Abortion, adoption, and abandonment all involve responsibility too. As does impregnation.
@223 - wait. So "equal rights for all" means that men have power over a woman's right to abort or give birth? Jesus wept, that is the one of the more horrible things I've ever heard in my life. And you're accusing us of being sexist? Really?
backyard bombadier is a rapist. Don't trust men that are okay with rape, like that person is. They'll rape you.
@233: That's an interesting analysis of my position regarding sexual responsibility. I'm curious how you have reached your clearly well-thought-out conclusion.
"Vasectomies have failure rates nearly as high as The Pill (due to the vas deferens re-growing)."

This is completely false.


Are you saying that men's sexual urges mean it is not reasonable to expect them to hold back when a woman offers sex, even if the man knows she will regret it the next day?

There's a balance between being paternalistic and refusing sex even when both people want it because you think she'll regret it, and taking advantage of someone with impaired judgment.

You can't know whether or not someone will regret it. If the person is completely sober, I don't think it makes sense to make decisions based on what you think they'll regret in most cases.

If I meet a girl who has had one or two drinks, say, and she actively wants to have sex with me, I'm probably going to assume that she is ok with it, probably won't regret it, and had the drinks knowing that there's a chance she may want to have sex.

Obviously if someone is so drunk they can't walk or talk or answer questions, then it's rape (well, unless she told you when she was sober that you could have sex with her when she was drunk).

It's a blurry line, and I suspect most guys find it hard to turn down sex when it's a borderline case.

As far as extreme definitions of rape, some extremist groups think that sex with someone who has had any alcohol at all is rape. Or that sex with someone who doesn't give explicit consent is rape. Or that sex with a drunk or sleeping person is rape even when you've had sex before and they told you ahead of time they were fine with sex. These are not the law, and it's only extreme groups that say this.

@215: The real problem with child support laws is that they make men pay even when the men are raped by women. Or when the men are underage (statutory rape). Or when the man isn't the biological father. Those are cases where men don't really have a choice. They're rare but they happen.
Criminy you're stupid. You've effectively disappeared up your own asshole (program person). I think you think of yourself as a sensitive feminist man, but you're a total asshole who death can't visit soon enough. Get a motherfucking life, you single stay at home testicles in wife's purse "dad" too, claim to have a penis (BB) yet have all of the substance and style of an obese beauty shop gossip. I still say you're a rapist, though...I thought this thread defined all penetration as rape, which is why so many people are screaming rape and hand wringing and gnashing their teeth. Shoot yourselves, please. Tedious morons.
PCP. I stand corrected.
@237: Well done, sir! Most of our unregistered trolls have been rather tedious and stupid as of late, but you are truly raising the bar.

Pour yourself a drink... er, I mean another drink. You've earned it. 9/10.
I didn't believe that you could quite pull it off, but you managed to call me exactly what I called you minus the rapist bit, you fat ugly rapist. Verbatim. It takes a particular skill to parrot the insults of another back at them. But I digress-- was that supposed to be funny? The funniest part is that you think it's funny, fat ugly rapist. I do hope you aren't operating under the delusion that you're some kind of wit, or are interesting, educated, and are anything other than a fat ugly rapist, fat ugly rapist. This is the best part of this comment section.
Hm. Quality declining rapidly. Maybe you shouldn't have had that last drink. 2/10.
233-241 for the win.

Masterful, all around.
That's hilarious! Pretending that you're some kind of judge or something (that you have beliefs based on sound arguments or any kind of refinement that enables you to distinguish good thinking from bad), and then spluttering through an accusation of drinking to discredit someone who called you a big fat ugly rapist, big fat ugly rapist. I think it's about time that you stripped down naked, slathered yourself in peanut butter, and hid in an old woman's bedroom closet with a recording device....big fat ugly rapist.
@243: Woof?
Are you seriously whoring your shit blog? Your thoughts and such (and I use the term loosely)? Don't nobody click the link! You're a total cunt if you click the link.

Erica's here! Thank wouldn't be the same...she's like a guest on jerry springer frantically searching for a way through the goons holding her back to attack one of her many half sisters for sleeping with the father of her fifth child. "OH NO YOU DINT, BITCH!"
Whoa, JA5, whoa. Let's get a few things straight: during the 9 months of pregnancy there are only 2 persons in the picture: the man and the woman. No third person. The third person comes to existence at birth (the US Constitution). Before birth, the woman is in charge of her body and the man is in charge of his. No sexism there!

It obviously bothers you that when people make decisions about their bodies other people who are affected by those decisions aren't able to influence them. You complain about having to pay child support, what would you say about someone's decision not to give their kidney/blood/bone marrow to a person who would otherwise die? Yes, when we make decisions about our bodies, other people can DIE, which is far worse than having to pay child support for 18 years, and yet no one in their right mind will even entertain the possibility of tying up a kicking screaming person in order to get their kidney/blood/bone marrow to save some other person's life. Sorry but that's called human rights. Every person decides what happens to their body, period.

After birth, both mother and father are equally responsible for the child. No sexism there either. If mother chooses to raise the child alone, the father will pay child support. If father chooses to raise the child alone, the mother will pay child support. If either mother or father wants to put the child up for adoption, they need the consent of the other parent. Where exactly do you see sexism here?
@245: Meow?
BlackRose @235 "If I meet a girl who has had one or two drinks, say, and she actively wants to have sex with me, I'm probably going to assume that she is ok with it, probably won't regret it"

What if she has previously said that she won't have sex with you unless you're single? What if she has had 3 or 4 drinks?
@Backyard Bombardier

The alternative is not sexist. She still has several ways to avoid responsibility, if she chooses. The same choices she always has, but that men never have.

And maybe I need to shout it...condoms fail. Vasectomies fail. I guess you'll advocate abstention rather than to give men semi-equal rights to women. I think granting semi-equal rights is much more sensible.
@Mr. J.

You equate wanting equal rights to "rage against women"? Uhm, ok. I guess you drank the feminist Kool-Aid.

Abortion, adoption, & legal-abandonment are all legal choices women have if they decide they do not want responsibility for a pregnancy for the next 18yrs. Men get no such choice to avoid responsibility for a pregnancy. Even if they take precautions, even if the woman lies, etc.

>So "equal rights for all" means that men have power over a woman's right to abort or give birth?

Wow, how did you manufacture that insanity? Try reading.

I never said a man has any rights over a woman's body. I support her right to choose (I donate to NOW & Planned Parenthood too). "Equal rights" means the man gets some right to disclaim responsibility, just as she has that right. She does it via abortion, adoption, or legal abandonment. He should be able to do it via a legal disclaim of rights, before birth.

You don't want equal rights. You want to cum and run.
@#192, Suzy: I'm pretty sure Badgirl wasn't referring to the risk of being raped when she was talking about the risks of going out in a mixed gender setting and having a drink, but rather the risks of lowered inhibitions leading to a sexual encounter that went further than you had expected and that you might regret the day after. If you and I met at a party, had several drinks, and found ourselves naked, making out and using our hands/mouths to pleasure each other, it would not be rape if you, straddling me, put my penis inside you. If I told you "no, I don't want to do this", or something like that, and you didn't immediately stop, then, yes, it would be rape (also, if you could reasonably assume that I was unable to protest, but with me having just recently been an active part in another sexual act, you wouldn't have much of a reason to believe that unless I had suddenly lost responsiveness), but a "natural progression" from making out to sexual intercourse, where both partners were active participants at least up until the point where the penis gets into the vagina, and no part shows signs of protesting, then it's not rape. It might be a bloody stupid mistake, on both parts, but it's not rape.

To say otherwise, in my opinion, is to remove agency from the potential victim, effectively telling us that women are weak little creatures that can't stand up for themselves, and need somebody else to protect them. I don't believe that. I believe women are just as capable as men of making decisions and standing up for themselves.

I'm not saying a woman who has been raped has herself to blame for it. Not at all. But if she actively participated all the way up until penetration, then didn't in any way protest this turn of events, then she is at least in part responsible. Or would you call the boy who hooked up with a girl, but just after penetrating her realizes - through the girl showing signs of discomfort or protest - that she doesn't want this, and withdraws, a rapist?

(you can of course spin all of these some way or another. If the guy is violently aggressive, and the woman fears that she by protesting will come to harm, then there's a reason for her not to protest beyond a discomfort of saying no, and so on and so forth, and that I might agree could be defined as rape)

Yes, vasectomies have failure rates nearly as high as The Pill (on average nearly 0.1%, due to the vas deferens re-growing)…
Though some studies have found much higher failure rates (even after years), and some much lower failure rates.

>The real problem with child support laws is that they make men pay even when

And that it may not be fairly calculated. The courts are extremely paternalistic and sexist when it comes to divorce & family law.

I'm fine if she makes decisions about HER body if they only involve her. I support her right to choose. I donate to NOW & Planned Parenthood.

However, she has at all times the right to decide not to deal with an unplanned child. She can abort, adopt, or legally abandon. A man has no such right yet to decide not to deal with an unplanned child, and he loses that right from the moment of conception. Once pregnant, she can freely makes decisions that obligate him, while all the while she retains the right to choose to not be obligated. That's very unequal rights. He should be able to disclaim responsibility, just as she has several recourses to avoid responsibility.
@Mr. J./253

>You don't want equal rights. You want to cum and run.

Women currently have the right to get pregnant, then "run" (abort, adopt, or legally abandon). They currently have the right to lie to a guy, get pregnant, then demand support. They have the right to abort a baby the guy would really like to have. Except for #2, I support all those rights.

Given all those rights, it would be a small measure of partial equality to give the man the right to "cum & run", as you put it.
248: "What if she has previously said that she won't have sex with you unless you're single? What if she has had 3 or 4 drinks?"

If she's busy kissing me, walking up to my room on my arm, taking off her own clothing unassisted (or taking my clothing off of me), and climbing on top of me under her own power, that's a plenty clear indication that she has changed her mind.

This insistence on a literal verbal consent is simple-minded. You (the generalized "you") expect a man to be sensitive enough to detect when a woman is uncomfortable and back off without a word being said -- but that same guy can't use that same level of sensitivity to intuit a "yes" from overt, enthusiastic, and escalating participation?
@ 256, it looks like you're objecting to the unfairness of nature/biology rather than unfairness of laws. Laws are not sexist, laws treat men and women as equals. Women legally decide about their bodies, men legally decide about their bodies. Men and women have equal responsibilities towards their children, men have access to all the options you have listed bar abortion (and that's because of biology, not because of sexist laws - I am sure if men could bear children they would have access to abortion too).

As I have pointed out, when we make decisions about our bodies it can influence other people. But you can't expect to be exempt from laws just because someone made a decision about their body that affected you unfavorably. (Because, you know, where would it stop? Your partner didn't put out last night so you want to be free to trash someone's car? Etc.)

You can be against all child support of course (that includes the cases when father is raising the child and the mother pays child support), but there is a reason why the society doesn't want children to potentially grow up in poverty, so I don't think child support is going anywhere at least in the foreseeable future.
@259 I was trying to bring it back to this case, where she did not walk to his room, and she did not climb enthusiastically onto his penis.

If he has reason to think she'll regret sex in the morning (from her previous statements), isn't it worth his time to find out if she really wants sex, before he escalates to penetration?

@209: "Do you agree, also, that guys should understand that a girl naked in bed is not thereby consenting to having sex, and may be thinking they are just going to make out?"

It isn't consent in and of itself, but it is a strong enough indicator that if she really does want to just make out, she ought to make that clear. In this case, yes, verbally, because the non-verbal indicators are pretty much all saying just the opposite.

(sorry, reading the comments thread kind of in random order.)
@JA5 You're looking at it all wrong. Once the child is out of the womb, assuming there's no adoption (which, if what's been said earlier here is true, requires the consent of both parents - I'm no expert on these laws in the US), it's no longer about your rights. For that matter, it's no longer about the mothers rights. It's about the CHILDS RIGHTS. You have no obligation towards the mother to pay child support, you have it towards the child. And honestly, as a man, I think you should man up and take that responsibility.

Not taking it also means lumping the cost over on the rest of society, either in the form of the state having to support the mom, or in a higher risk of the child ending up a burden to society when he/she grows older (or both).

The legal system is sexist. Women are given several options, if they choose, to avoid being obligated to an unplanned pregnancy for 18 yrs (abort, adopt, legally abandon). Men are given no options. But the law could let them, if it weren't sexist. How are you saying men now have the same options? If she unilaterally decides to have the baby, I must pay. I can't avoid the obligation.

Men can't make any decisions here that bind women (I can't make her abort or have a child), and that's fine. But women are allowed to do so in reverse (she can force me to pay), and that's not ok.

>But you can't expect to be exempt from laws just because someone made a decision about their body that affected you unfavorably.

The law should change so that she cannot bind a man who doesn't want to be. If she still wants to raise the kid without support, she can bear the financial consequences of her decision.

>where would it stop? Your partner didn't put out last night so you want to be free to trash someone's car?

That's a ridiculously extreme example.

I'm not against child support. Unless the man, before birth, says he does not want an unplanned child.
@262, I agree with the advice to girls.

Will you agree that guys should remember that naked girls sometimes don't want intercourse, and aren't expecting it?

So you've drunk the feminist Kool-Aid. She gets the rights to avoid obligation of a pregnancy (abort, adopt, or legally abandon), force a child on a man, or abort a child the man wanted (a right she should have), and the man has no similar right to choose to avoid obligation of a pregnancy. Sorry, I'm not going to agree with such sexism. And yes, I know there is sexism that goes against women, I don't support that either.
JAS - what if the system were that you had to get a notarized statement, BEFORE INTERCOURSE, signed by both the man and the woman, revoking the man's rights/responsibilities towards any possible child with this woman?

All of us tax-payers would bear the cost, then, of raising your (unwanted) children.

Would you put up with that? With the hassle of getting the notarized statement before sex with a new partner? And with the extra taxes?
@ 264, the legal system is not sexist because

A) women have the right to medical interventions (because of biology one of those interventions can be abortion), men have the right to medical interventions (it's not legal system's fault that one of those interventions can't be abortion)

B) mothers have the right to put up children for adoption (with father's consent), fathers have the right to put children up for adoption (with mother's consent)

C) as for legal abandonment, while it's not familiar to me as a concept, from what I've read I haven't found one jurisdiction where it applies to women only so I can't see it as sexist - please correct me if I'm wrong

D) if one of the parents chooses to leave the child with the other parent the non-custodial parent shall pay child support - again not sexist

So my conclusion is that men have the same rights as women. As I have pointed out, the third person comes into existence and becomes a person by being born - from that moment on, both parents can stay with the child, both parents can walk away, or one can stay and one can walk away (and pay child support) - regardless of their gender. The woman can't legally renounce her future obligations towards the child before birth, and neither can the man. (For example if the man persuades her to give birth and promises that she can leave the child with him - if she gives birth and leaves the child with him he can sue her for child support and win, because it wasn't legally possible for her to waive her parental rights and obligations before the birth of the child.)

Before the third person comes into existence, both men and women are entitled to do whatever they want with their bodies. The fact that one specific medical intervention performed on women prevents the third person from coming into existence is your beef with biology, not the legal system - as you can see the legal system doesn't give more rights to women.
Just what kind of contact does FOFS want with her exes and is her current GGG boyfriend aware that she wants tu maintain contact with her exes? Are these her former lovers and is her current boyfriend comfortable with that?
I would feel ackward if I was in a committed relationship (an assumption, since I have no clue as to the nature of their relationship) and found out that my partner still had a thing for her former lovers. She was more affected by the death of a former lover than breaking up with what was her then current boyfriend (assuming she still thought of him as her boyfriend)
@JA5: "Men are given no options."

For the love of God, grow the fuck up.

You have the option not stick your dick in a woman if you are too much of a fucking pussy to take the responsibility for your own actions. You spin all this "you've drunk the feminist Kool-Aid" like you are so much more of a man because you are fighting for your "rights".

Go fuck yourself. You're not a man, you are a petulant child that wants ice cream then whines when he gets a tummy ache. Men live up to their responsibilities, they don't cut and run.

Thank goodness for you, BB! Without your wisdom and understanding, self righteous "sensitive feminist men" may never have been heard from. And what a shame that would be. A loss unparalleled in the last twenty, thirty, perhaps thirty five seconds. I think I'm speaking for the entire human race in proclaiming your insight, banal cliche riddled prose and ambitious thirty days to a larger vocabulary overreaching one of the crowning accomplishments of western civilization. Sally forth and share your crunchy wisdom with "less evolved" menfolk. Tell them what they want to hear, or rather, what you think they do...that is, women.

Rape! Rape!
@272: Glub?
Anyone that stands in the way of more abortions being performed in the u.s. is the enemy. If that means that misguided frat boys who want to evade responsibility by forcing the women they date raped into pregnancy (penetration is rape, folks...just accept it like you do everything else in your pointless lives. A penis isn't just like a loaded gun, it is one...and you take your very life in your hands when you take one in hand, playing....gambling) to get abortions, it must be law. Of course you can justify it by saying you drank the feminist koolaid, but in reality, a woman's right to choose is a choice too far...preventing deserving fetuses from being properly disposed of in equally deserving biological waste containers.
When a man can be on the hook for child support payments during the pregnancy, then he can have a say in whether or not the pregnant woman should have an abortion. Until that time, it is the woman's decision alone, and she has no obligation, moral, ethical or otherwise, to disclose an unwanted pregnancy if she is ending it in abortion or adoption. The only time she is required to disclose is if she is keeping the baby as the man will have a legal responsibility to support the child / right to see the child.

Point being: men, the only way you get a say in not becoming a father is to not get a woman pregnant.
@259 - maybe. Not necessarily. But does that give you the go-ahead to have unprotected sex with her without asking/making it clear what you are doing/without her ok? Like in this case?
@276: I think "are you on birth control" in context made it pretty clear and was a way of getting her ok.

@273: I love all the confused animals! Where are they from?

@267: I'd support that system. If I were fertile, I doubt I'd go to the trouble of ever using it, but it would be good to have as an option. Why only before intercourse, if both people agree?

The idea would be to encourage the woman to get an abortion. We could even deny tax dollars to a woman who went ahead and had the kid after such an agreement, and offer free abortions, or even pay people to get them. That would take care of your tax dollar objection.
@277: I'm pretty lazy. I just do this.
@277 why before intercourse? So the guy wouldn't beat up the girl to get her to sign it. And so the girl won't get pregnant as a way to pressure him into a commitment. The point is to make the possible consequences real to both parties BEFORE they have sex.

The idea is NOT to encourage abortion. The idea is to encourage effective use of birth control. The woman is just acknowledging that the guy isn't going to help later. We can't make the mom care for the baby and support it too - that's crazy talk.

Sorry. Taxes would go up, way up. I just want to know if JAS would be on board.
Good news, JA5 - it's just occurred to me that men can abort a child too, albeit after it's already been born, and women don't have a say in it.

Abortion is effectively refusing to use one's body to support another being. Well should the child get sick and need organ/tissue donation, and the only matching donor was its father, the father is also able to refuse to use his body to support his child's life. Since it's his body, he can do whatever he wants with it, even if the mother

1) wants the child to live and will resent the man for killing her baby
2) is a non-custodial parent who would rather not pay child support and would prefer the child to die. Can she demand the right to ditch her obligation to the child before the man decides whether he's gonna preserve the child's life or not? Because, you know, the decision is not in her hands, she should have as much right to avoid the obligation as the man, wah wah. Hell no.

So yeah, no sexism in the legal system. The right to one's body belongs to both genders.
@268 tiare: Actually, the system is a bit sexist, de facto if not de jure, but it's in the complete opposite direction of what JA5 talks about: Child custody. As far as I'm aware, when it comes to child custody battles, the mother is generally awarded a lot more rights than the father (though the law may well be non-gender-specific - I'm talking about actual outcomes here).

There's also a bit of a problem with the adoption thing, seeing as the mother has the possibility of not informing the father of the child, and so could adopt it away without him having a say in it, simply because he's not aware there is a child (obviously, this would generally only happen with one-night stands, etc, and I'm sure the father would often just welcome the child being adopted away, but in some cases, it might not be that way).
Not sure if it can be described as sexist in the first case - only if the court is choosing to give the custody to the mother just because she's a woman even though it's clearly better for the child to stay with its father. Which is obviously wrong and against the spirit of the law. However, if in most cases the mother simply is the better choice for the child, it's not sexism really.

The other problem is actually a problem with biology, not the legal system. Yes, it is more difficult for a man to track down his offspring, but you can't blame it on the law. If a man is so invested in the destiny of his sperm, maybe checking on every woman he's had sex with several months later would be a good idea. Yes, it's a drag, but being a woman can also be a drag, and we can't blame every bit of perceived unfairness in nature on the legal system.
[...] grow the fuck up [...] fucking pussy [...] Go fuck yourself. You're not a man [...] Asshole.

The discussion would be more interesting without all this "righteous rage". Why all the insults?
@284 - Not rape. Just, not ethical. If I know someone can't afford to give me $1000 in gambling chips, but I talk him into it when we're having drunken fun at the gambling table -- that's not ethical of me. It's not theft, but it's not ethical.

Wouldn't expect a troll like you to know the difference though. "If I want to do it, I will! It's not a crime!"
@285: Why? Why not?

JA5 was becoming rather tedious, just repeating the same old whines about how his freedom to fuck without regard to consequences was being infringed. So I stopped being civil. That happens around here.

And, to be honest, "men" like him who have a huge sense of entitlement where their sense of responsibility should be regarding sex and relationships are a hot button for me. I have one son and two daughters; my goal is to prevent the former from becoming that way, and to protect the latter from those who have.

@JA5 your theory is that the law bends in favour of the woman, you argue that it should be bending more in favour of the man.


The law is there in the interest of the CHILD. as it should be - and when it isn't, it should be changed. The rights of the (born - this isn't a pro-life rant) child are the most important when any is in conflict.

If a parent is unfit their child is (hopefully) taken away. A safe home is the child's right, the right to have custody of a child is less important. (I'd argue it's a privilage but that's me)

To say that the woman 'controls the man's life' is why people think you have rage against women. It sounds like you're talking about your mother, not anyone elses. Because it's 100% irrational. The woman is legally entiteled to a small portion of money from the man to help raise that child - is that fair to the man? No. But it's ideal for the child.

Would it be ideal to prevent "mother abandonment?" as you described? Preventing women from putting their children up for adoption? No. Those children are better off with families that want them.

If you think in terms of the CHILD'S rights and not the fathers or mothers the laws make more sense.

It's impossible to have perfectly gender-equal laws since the genders are different.

And last but not least: it's exceedingly easy to dodge paying child support. Ask anyone.
oh and for the record: I find myself wildly at odds with most women that call themselves feminists
These letters make me so F@#$ing glad I stopped dating women 15 years ago. Why you all think bat shit drama is ok is beyond me.
NARAL should be angry with Dan. Once the semen is out of the guy's dick its no longer his. Once it fertilizes an egg its no longer semen, its something else (zygote, fetus, clump of cells, etc.) and still no longer his. What it has become belongs to the woman who it now resides inside and it is her, and her alone, who gets to choose what to do with the clump of cells. That's why its called a CHOICE. Yes, even if he's married to the woman in which the clump is growing, its still her choice.
Oh looky! Backyard Bombadier @287 is raising children to be sensitive feminist men like him. They'll be great UU ministers, wearing dumpy formless sweaters, sport ratty ass beards, and birkenstocks. A mug of some hot beverage (and they'll use words like 'beverage') will never be but an arm's length away as they amuse themselves by memorizing the works of great hippie liberal douchebags that came before them. They'll honor/ defer to their life partners and equals, and will waste endless hours inflicting their fascination with the intersectionality of oppression on others. I look forward to the future douchebags of america.
@292 Right, when a sexually adventurous woman disparages your ethics, call her a hooker. If only I didn't like hookers so much, I might be hurt. Or, not.
@294: Don't listen to the trolls. You're awesome. :)

@279: Well, even so, it's still possible that a guy would pressure or abuse a girl to get her to sign, and then they'd have consensual sex. (It does happen in abusive relationships, sadly.) Either way, coerced agreements aren't legally valid, though there'd be some difficulty proving coercion.

I'm not sure why the idea is not to encourage abortion (which is one form of birth control -- it does control births). The way I see it, abortions (and all BC) should be freely and easily available to anyone, and raising a child should be a conscious, informed choice that two people make together.

I don't see why public funds should go to someone who decides not to get an abortion even if she can't support a kid and doesn't have the father's support. I don't think we're "making" her raise and support the kid; she's making the choice to not get an abortion, and I don't think that choice should be encouraged or funded.

(All this requires a lot more public funding and support for abortion than is politically feasible, of course.)
@294 EricaP

I still adore you.
@255: That abstract you cited doesn't say anything about the pregnancy rate for vasectomized men.

Here's some information:…

"Vasectomy is usually quoted at less than 1% technical failure rate. Remember that most men do eventually become clear, so the technical failure rate is misleading as in the vast majority of cases a technical failure does not mean a contraceptive failure. The man just keeps submitting samples until he's proven to be clear."

It gives the pregnancy rate for vasectomies as 1 in 2000 to 4000 and for the pill as 1 in 20 to 1000.

And keep in mind the pill is easy to mess up: forget it a couple times or go on some antibiotics and it loses a lot of effectiveness. But once you're snipped, you're snipped.
Also: "So what are the chances of a vasectomy rejoining after the all clear has been given? This is known as late recanalization, and is in fact very rare. It develops in only about one in 4,000 (0.025%) of vasectomies. It has been known to occur as late as 17 months after vasectomy."

In other words, there has never been a case of the vas rejoining itself after more than 17 months, so if you're clear after 17 months, the failure rate is 0.
Not all vasectomies are the same. Or so I was told when I got mine. But that goes more to the issue of reversibility. There's no repairing what I had done. Forget growing back spontaneously, surgeons can't even do it.

That was over 10 years ago and I must have had sex like 20 times since then without making babies.
@299 - you crack me up.
@293: Okay, it was fun before, but it's starting to get creepy. Maybe you need a hobby?
@300 Hi beautiful. What are you up to tonight cuz I've got this thousand bucks...
@295 โ€“ The system I facetiously proposed is not possible politically, but the only thing that could make it even less popular is to say it promotes abortion. And tax monies would still flow to feed the kid, because kids born to irresponsible parents have enough suckitude in their lives without starving as well.
@302, hey, baby needs a new pair of shoes...
Hunter78, you said, "Their position is once women start drinking, they lose the power of assent. And any sexual contact becomes becomes rape by the man, unless there's written approval." That's not how the law generally sees it, though. Rather, you can't have sex with someone who is too incapacitated to give consent. I should hope that most drinking doesn't impair a person that way. However, when it does, consent is no longer possible. This is true for both sexes, not just women. It's also false that "any sexual contact" is considered rape; generally there are degrees of sexual assault or battery.

Here's an example (from Wisc.) of sex with a drunken person as a second degree sexual assault: "Sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person known to be intoxicated, known to be unconscious, or known to suffer from diminished capacities of any sort that temporarily or permanently render the victim incapable of understanding the consequences of such conduct." This doesn't apply to any and all drinking, obviously.

Thomas, the cases you're talking about also don't seem to involve being incapable of consent due to intoxication. If they did, then yes, they'd be wrong.

What EricaP says about theft of gambling chips depends on the circumstances. Was the person slightly or severely drunk? Did you know this and use it to manipulate someone into doing something that would otherwise not be chosen? If I sign a contract when I'm wasted, it might not be enforceable. I have to have a legal capacity to contract. If you get really drunk I can't take advantage of this opportunity to purchase your nice car for a dollar. Obviously the rape case is different from a contract for a number of reasons, but they share the same underlying idea that a person needs to be mentally capable of consent.

I guess I don't understand why this is controversial. If you pass out, can I penetrate you with some object? Surely we want the law to address that. The fact that there's a continuum of intoxication levels doesn't mean we have to toss out this whole category of cases that involved impaired consent.
@271: Well said!!!

I could not have phrased it any better myself!

You'll shut your fat ugly trap when I tell you to. Until then, talk at us about how forward thinking you are, vaginaface.
EricaP, you are an enchantress. With your world weary "this twenty year old con man haints my dreams" air of overweight shut in, I am at a loss for words. I'll regain my composure when you stop insinuating your handicapped worldview in things that you so clearly've never rascal free mobiliteee.
Both LWs are drama queens. The second more obviously so, but the first--what was the point of her frickin' letter anyway? She WASN'T pregnant, and that's great that she decided to get all philosophical about her scare, but the fact remains that she had NOTHING to tell this guy, except maybe to beg him for some more of his spunk.
I emailed you about this, but felt obligated to post it here also. It Gets Better, Although not Necessarily in Tennessee." I've tweaked things slightly on the post since emailing you.…
Hunter78 @180: "Anastasia's, as others' here, accusation of rape is clear proof, if anyone was wanting it, that the left can be as vicious and inhuman as the right."

Speaking of false accusations. What I actually wrote: "Not arguing for or against in this particular case, just saying."

It's fine to disagree with my definition of rape, but don't twist my words to fit me into some little box of your design.

@309 - she was wondering about her ethical obligation to inform a one night stand/jackass as to whether or not she was pregnant if she were. If you are female and fertile, this is an absolutely relevant question that inevitably at some point will cross your mind. Hopefully it won't actually happen, but if it does, what is your obligation to the guy? There really isn't a consensus or a protocol so she asked Dan and by proxy, us. And from the sound of it, pretty sure she's had enough of his spunk.
Suzy @305, I believe drunken transfers of cars & real estate are legally different from other kinds of transfers, because of the question of title. Intoxicated gamblers who sue to get their money back from the casino seem to lose in court. See, for instance,…

So - if the drunken gambler hands me the chips instead of the dealer, I think that legally I get to keep them.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.