Pyrrho

Whether you would call a man a "jerk" or not, I would call any man a jerk who shows no concern for whether or not he is going to get a woman pregnant. If he knows absolutely nothing about birth control, then he has either received an extremely poor education, or is very stupid. But if they only needed to be "reminded", as you say, then they knew something, but were not concerned enough about what would happen to you to use the knowledge that they already had. They should care enough, and be aware enough, that they don't need to be reminded. No one EVER needed to remind me of such things. Perhaps, though, you don't literally mean "reminded".

What do you mean regarding Loren's last comment? Do you mean to suggest that he thinks that better men marry virgins? He may have meant that (though I did not think of that possibility until after reading your response), but I simply took it to mean that someone who is with one person will often not be considered available, so if a better person comes along, he or she will tend to look elsewhere. When I was single, I did not try to break apart any couples.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Pyrrho
If a man simply assumes that a casual acquaintance will have an abortion, he is making an unwarranted assumption. This is a mistake he is making, and he cannot reasonably blame someone else for his own stupidity in making bad assumptions.

Most women who would engage in a casual encounter would abort. Thats' the normal position, I feel it should be on her to indicate if she doesn't go along with this.

Marriage is a contract that has many aspects. Whenever you sign a contract, you are agreeing to ALL of the clauses, not just some of them that you like. You and your wife may not have any children, but if your wife does bear any children, you have signed a legally binding document that says that you will be regarded as the father.

I know. I just don't think the law is right.

[BB]In my case, I have done precisely the same thing. My wife and I have a verbal agreement that we will not ever have children, and we have taken the appropriate steps to make that a reality.[/B]

Same here.

I agree. Before I was married, I spent many nights alone when I did not have to. But I think it is far better to be alone than with the wrong person. Others may disagree, but whatever people choose to do, they should consider the possible consequences of their actions before they act.

Agreed.

Loren Pechtel

There's a long range between casual sex and sex only in marriage.

alek0

Lets consider following scenarios of unwanted pregnancy:

1. Woman wants to keep it, man wants to keep it. No problem.
Possibility that man changes his mind later can be adequately addressed by making him express his commitment towards raising a child in written form.

2. Woman doesn't want to keep it, man doesn't want to keep it. No problem.

3. Man wants to keep it, woman doesn't and she aborts. Fair enough, it is her body.

4. Woman wants to keep it, man doesn't. Woman forces man to pay child support over next 18 years and he has no way out of it, even if she claimed before she got pregnant that she would abort and he made it clear he didn't want any children.

Don't you think it is a bit too much? In every possible combinations of"yes" and "no", it is a woman who has the final say. I don't think that correcting inequality of this situation would result in significant increase of irresponsible behavior in males.
There are irresponsible individuals among humans of both genders. Should we ban abortions because there are women who use them as primary contraception method and have one every year or two?

Pyrrho

You again are leaving out the possibility that the woman gives birth and does not want the child, but the father does. He then may force her to pay child support. This may happen even if he lied and claimed to be sterile before they ever had sex. We may regard this as situation 5.

With situation 5, the woman does not have the final say at all, contrary to your claim. And with 1 & 2, they both get their way (assuming with 1 that the couple stays together; otherwise, the courts decide who "wins").

The ONLY inequality is the situation # 3, but that is purely a biological difference.

Obviously, either a man or woman may lie about things beforehand, and that is always a bad thing, but it is not worse for a woman to lie than a man. Let us not pretend that only women can lie about reproduction before they have sex.

Decoy

'Scuse me for butting in here...

Isn't one of the other 'clauses' in a traditional marriage contract that there will be fidelity? If the wife gets pregnant with a child that is not her husband's, it would seem to me that she's the one who 'voided' the marriage contract.

alek0

But a woman can prevent situation 5 by having an abortion. How can a man prevent situation 4? That's where the problem is.

Buddrow_Wilson

That is generally true, however there are "open" marriages. So its possible it could happen without voiding the contract, so to speak.

Welcome to the IIDF Decoy!

Decoy

I was very careful to stick the word 'traditional' in there.

Thanks.

Soyin Milka

Mwuahahahaha
I got private messages inquiring about my objections to these statements, especially that of Loren. This is gonna be a little off-topic though, so please indulge me.

"If you don't sleep with jerks you get a better partner in the long run" is the part I object to because it sounds like something beaten in the mind of women for generations. It could be read to mean it absolves men from being the jerks and places the blame on the woman if she gets in trouble because she has not been doing what she should be doing to get a better partner. It sorta again implies it's the woman's fault if she got pregnant from a jerk.

Some people worried I was offended because Loren's comment could have been interpreted as an attack on my character, because of the context in which it was made. I guess it could be read to mean I'd rather be with a jerk than sleep alone more often. Loren is not a jerk and I don't think that's what he meant by his comment.

There are many reasons why a woman might be disappointed by the way the men she had sex with dealt with contraception. It's not necessarily because she sleeps around a lot and meets "jerks".

I have never been disappointed by a casual sex partner (if we keep the topic about protection) because I don't expect much from them. I also have draconian rules I live by . If a guy shows up for sex without condoms, he's on his own. I'm not interested by him anymore. I got called a few nasty names because of that, but I can deal with it.

Guys can be responsible casual sex partners too. I've met a few who took health and contraception very seriously. One guy I'll probably never forget showed up with condoms of all kinds, spermicide, lubricant, latex gloves and a roll of Saran Wrap (Try to guess what sex act Saran Wrap can make safer!). That's a bit over the top, but I'm not gonna complain about that. Oh no.

The guys who disappointed me the most with how they dealt with protection were guys I was involved with in longer relationships. But I've hijacked the thread for long enough.

That discussion has been very interesting though. It made me think a lot and realise what I would require from a man interested in having a long-term relationship or a family with me.

So thanks to all who took part in it.

Soyin