Girls less likely to use protection = Boy still to blame

Remove all ads!

I realize this, but they are the consequences of the mother's choice to raise the children on her own. Despite what so many people think, little babies up for adoption are in high demand in the US right now, and have been for a while. There are a lot of people with decent amounts of money, if not a lot of money, who would be happy to lovingly raise those children for you. I know. I've known about six such couples. Demand was so high and the number of children up for adoption was so low that all the adoption agencies recommended they go through a foreign nation, like China, including all the paperwork and fees, because it'd be faster.

Riiight. I guess any guy coming to the front door becoming fertilizer is just a euphamism for them using your bathroom, right? I mean, at least T2 was going to give them some chances to survive, and inform them of what the rules are, too.

Though, even if you were talking exclusively about sexual encounters, realize that in most states it's only statutory rape if one party is over the legal age (and in some only if they're also X years apart). So, if a 16-year-old gets together with another 16-year-old, no, it's not rape. Not in any way.

And you were accusing me of having an overactive imagination? What about yours? And a sick one, too, apparently. You do realize that a 'playmate' and a 'mate' are not the same thing, don't you?

 

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about here. I don't know of ANY mother who, when faced with divorce and abandonment from her husband, will say 'oh well, I didn't want those kids either' -- I'm sure there are some out there, but they are not the norm. If every "single parent" put their kid up for adoption we would have a flood of children, far more than could be absorbed by adoption agencies worldwide or even sweatshops and child slavery groups. This was undoubtedly the most callous stance I've seen you take on any subject.

I find it ironic the most vocal "Christian" on the boards adopts the most 'unchristian' stance on the subject.

 

Hmm. I had been more thinking of separation at or before birth than in the middle of the child's life. I guess that does become a different case. Let's say that if the father establishes himself in the child's life once, then he's taken on the responsability and can't just give it up. So, if a one-night-stand results in a baby, the mother can't trap the father into child support, but if a marriage breaks up with a 5-year-old kid, then responsability has already attached.

 

Making misleading and inaccurate statements won't help you much. I was quite clear that I would "defend" my girls, (who are 7 and 9, btw) from being "attacked." I never said ANYTHING about "boyfriends," nor did I say anything about guys that "the girls bring home." Those are terms that YOU used to take my comments out of the intended context, because you lack any ability to debate in a straight forward and honest fashsion, which has been especially evident on this thread. An example of this is the way in which you brought "5-year olds" into this topic, for no reason, since both my girls are several years past 5. Nevetheless, I would like to hear your excuse for that.

PS: I click/delete your PMs unread.

 

That's a little, but not much better, NOG. If you call the piper you have to pay for the tune. A baby by a one-night-stand is still a child and deserves the support of both parents (even if only financial).

 

Aha. I see it now. I was assuming that, since you were using similar language in the same context, you were talking about the same thing as T2, who specifically was about boyfriends. I didn't realise you were talking about someone breaking into your house with the intent of raping your daughters. I fully support the use of firearms in such a circumstance, though I don't think they have anything to do with this topic.

I have no idea how old your daughters are, or even if you actually have any. For the record, any talk I do about my children is entirely hypothetical at the moment, as are they. I brought up 5-year-olds on playdates because you apparently were talking about boys coming over (I thought by invitation, it seems I was wrong), but not boyfriends. That seemed like an innocent other context, 5-year-old boys coming over to play with your 5-year-old daughters, maybe checkers, or shoots and ladders.

Well, maybe you should try PMs instead. They're there for a purpose. Some things don't belong in public threads. Since PMs have failed by your own choice, let me put it here:

Spoiler

Ever since Martaug left the scene, you and Ragusa have apparently directed all your conservatice-ire at me. You have assumed, often in direct contradiction to my own posts, that I take the most extreme positions you can imagine. I thought for a long time that you were in Martaug Withdrawl, and that it'd ease up with time. Instead, it's just gotten progressively worse. You've gone from treating me harshly (perfectly acceptable) to accusing me of positions I don't hold (wrong, but clearable) to putting words in my mouth (just plain wrong) to now repeated open insults and insulting accusations. I'm sick of it. I don't care if you're 'just joking' or not. Shut up. If you won't treat a fellow poster (me) with basic respect, don't talk to them.

If a Mod feels the need to delete that, I understand.

T2:
In an ideal world, I'd agree with you entirely. In this one, though, where child support may not even be going to the child, I don't. The mother has two legal chances to avoid being responsable for the child. I don't agree with one of them, but it's there. One doesn't even cost any money or have any risk to her attached to it. The father, once his task is done, has no say in his own fate whatsoever. That's blatant sexism.

 

Whatever. I've had them since you and I have both been on this board. You can stop your dishonesty.

What I'm talking about are predators. My neighbors across the street had a problem with guys hanging about outside his house when their young granddaughter came to stay with them. They showed up during the summer while they were at work, and they would hang about in the street sometimes going up to the door. His granddaughter didn't seem to mind, but the grandfather knew what was going on and what they were looking for. One day he came home from work and found them in his garage talking with her; he got pissed and ran them off. They were "kind" enough to come back and pelt his house with eggs. A few of the stains are still there. Now that she has a regular boy-friend, they are not around.

Another guy that I once worked with had the same problem. He was divorced and his young daughter would come for the summer. Same thing, with guys in the neighboorhood hanging about outside his house. He was a very confrontational person and had no problem confronting them. When they told him they would "be back for his daughter," and when they showed up yet again, he charged out of the house with a hand gun and scared them off.

My advice to him was to wait till they came to the door before breaking out the weapons. I thought it was better advice.

It's quite obvious you have never been a parent.

You are so funny.

As I explained to you once before, I already have 3 kids and I don't need another whiner. I get enough whining in my day already.

Oh, yeah, like saying that I would "shoot up a 5-year old." You should take your own advice. So, here you are posting what is supposed to be a private message on a public forum. You are quite the hypocrite, aren't you?

I would consider any PMs from you harrasment, since I really don't want any "private" dealings with you.

This is from the rules:

I still didn't bother, so don't waste your time, as I certainly won't waste mine. So don't bother to post any of the other PMs you have sent me, since that is not the first one I have click/deleted.

In fact, I think I will just put you on my "ignore list." So don't bother again, since I won't be seeing it.

 

NOG, that's where a lot of fathers seem to have problems as well. The money for child support is doesn't go to the child -- it is so the custodial parent can provide a better environment. An extra few hundred can go a long way to living in a slightly larger place or in a better school district. Child support is also to cover the added cost of food and utilities and pay for clothing and other incidentals (although it doesn't alway work that way). The money gives the mother and the child a better life -- because it also improves the mothers quality of life many fathers are are willing to punish their kids. And that's plain wrong, no matter how you look at it.

 

Im going to have to start this thread from the beginning, as ive missed too much:

To me, this 'study' seems dubious at best. firstly, it has been carried out by a student, secondly it is based solely on analysing government data, there is no primary research it is all based on secondary evidence.

lets put it this way, if youve got 2 people having unprotected sex, youve got both a girl not using protection and a boy not using protection - so, the statistic is pointless, both parties are equally responsible for protecting themselves from unplanned pregnancy and STD's - so I dont think blame can be apportioned to any one party.

onto contraception.

Some people (mostly men because it means they dont have to use a condom (I put have in italic because they should still use a condom because of STD's and no contraception is 100%)) praise the pill, because they think its easy. lets look at easy for a second:

A condom is easy, what could be easier then sliding a latex 'glove' which is coated in spermicide over your knob? easy and safe. stats claim 96% effective

The pill is not easy, stats claim it is 99% effective...
unless youve been sick, had diarrhoea, are taking other medicen, miss one, or do not take it at the same time each day.
The condom has no side effects...
The pill has many side effects:

> headaches
> nausea
> breast tenderness
> weight gain
> ‘spotting’ of blood between the periods.
> deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or clotting (this is now thought to be slightly more common in women who are taking Pills containing the progestogens desogestrel and gestodene)
> heart attacks
> strokes.
> varicose veins
> risk of blood clots
> migraine
> increased risk of liver cancer
> increased risk of cancer of the ovary
> increased risk of endometrium cancer

The risks are also higher with age.

Most health care providers forget to mention that using the pill diminishes the body's zinc, the vitamin Bs and essential fatty acid levels. It also affects the body's cooper levels by making them go up higher. None of these are good for a woman. That is especially true because vitamin B6, nicknamed the stress vitamin, is known to be essential in fighting depression, mood swings and feeling stressed. Studies have shown that taking the pill effectively impedes the capability of the women's brain to absorb serotonin. Everyone needs serotonin to properly filter through the brain as it is the body' self made happy chemical. Thus women taking the pill are more likely to suffer from depression, mood swings, paranoia and obsessive behaviour.

Id say that women who dont want to take the pill should be free to make that choice without criticism, I put the blame on the male who can cimply slip a condom on his knob, and slip it back off again when finished, no side effects no problems, no STD's.

on to the child support debate:

When parents split up the secondary carer must pay financial support to the primary carer, regardless of the male/female debate. how the primary carer spends that money it neither here nor there, if the secondary carer feels that the money it not being spent for the childs well being (for example the primary carer seems to be taking lots of holidays abroad and leaving the child with its grandparents) then he/she is free to take that up with child welfare who will investigate the claims. also, if the child is in school generally the staff will notice if the child is coming into class malnourished of scruffy or with other health issues then they will take it up with child welfare.

 

I take it you're invoking the rule you mentioned? That's fine with me. I'll return the request to you. And, in fact, I'd request you to just not respond to me at all.

My only disagreement with this is that the condom isn't a gender-specific solution. The pill is. Only women can take the pill with any effect, and a man can't carry a pill around with him to insist the woman take it. It would be risky to do so and wouldn't help any anyway. The condom, on the other hand, can be a last-minute 'suggestion' from the woman. The woman can provide it, insist it is used, and even make sure it's used properly, just as much as the man can.

My main complaint on the issue is in those cases where the parents aren't specifically a 'couple' to begin with, or at least not a parental couple. If it's a one-night-stand, or if he doesn't want kids, but she 'forgets' the pill for a while. Things like that. It's the case where the woman has all the choices, while the man has none.

 

there is a male pill, but for some reason men dont get criticised like women do for not taking it.

men can get the morning after pill, and insist the woman use it, or he could bring a cervical cap or a female condom with him, there are many methods of contraception, its up to both parties to take precautions, not for one to tell the other "strap up"

again, people making it look like the man doesnt have any choices, he has one very important choice, whether to have sex at all, if you dont trust your partner, why would you have sex with her? why would he not take his own precautions? after all, sex is our species method of procreation, if you dont want kids, dont do the deed.

 

The difference is that men can't force women to take a morning after pill if she wants to get pregnant. (At least, not without breaking some laws...) Were as a woman can take the morning after pill regardless of what the man wants. Whether or not the woman should be able to make this choice isn't really pertinent to the discussion I don't think. The discussion was about contraception, not "anything that can happen after sex and it's gender-specific impact."

I agree with you here. The only 100% successful form of contraception is abstinence. If you don't agree with your partner on what to do if the women gets pregnant, do you have the right to complain about what happens after? This question applies to both women and men. (Which is likely why we derailed into a discussion about fairness in carrying to term/child support.)

 

There is nothing wrong with that. We can agree that they should NOT be able to force a woman to take one against her will.

That's not really contraciption. That's not engaging and means that "contraception" is not required. If this is going to be a pro-abstinence rant, then great. I have no problem with abstinence, or those who have a pro-abstinence agenda. But all that is really beside the point.

So now we are moving into the realm of "men and women" and no longer young girls having sex for the first time. That's a major difference. At a more mature age a lot of women know what they want before hand. When I was between wives and dating, some women insisted on contraception. A few of them even supplied male condoms. However, there is always the rare one that wants to get PG.

The point is that there is a entire specturm, from guys who are extra careful, to guys who brag and consider it a badge of honor to have illegitimate kids. Occasionally, you hear that one hick who says, "I have 12 kids in 5 states, and those are the ones I know of...." I tend not to believe these country morons, but you never know.

 

I certainly agree.

I'm not going on a pro-abstinence rant, don't worry. I was simply agreeing with Soshino's statement (that the only way to be certain you won't make a baby, is by not having vaginal intercourse, at least in most young teens. There are certainly other methods of assuring there will be no baby made for older men and women).

Teens aren't always 14. Young women who are 18 or 19 are maturing women who are starting to make choices on their own and are legally adults. That doesn't mean they understanding everything perfectly, but they should know about the consequences and have an idea of what they want. I did when I was 18, which is why I was very careful: I didn't want to raise a child on the budget of two college students on their own.

Guys who brag about having illegitimate kids are jerks. I think they're quite despicable. Though, I never got into the 'bragging' about sex, masculinity contest regardless.

If we're talking about young, young people, then yes I agree that they don't know what they want/can't comprehend the consequences fully. If we're talking about older teens (18-19), they should be able to comprehend what they're doing.

 

Last I heard that was still in development, and probably a decade away from actual availability.

The morning-after pill carries it's own risks and is morally objectionable to some of the population. The other options are functionally the same as the condom, and I count them all collectively. Yes, any of those are an option, and any is something that either partner can provide at a moment's notice. Yes, my overall point is that, for all that aren't pills (which inherrantly carry certain risks), it's an equal responsability.

Who you should trust and who you do trust are not always the same thing. Although I do agree that this is the most important choice, I still object to the fact that, after it, the woman has all the power.

 

NOG ... do you just resent that women "have all the power" in something? That women are actually protected from men in this regard and are not at a man's mercy? Your position on this just doesn't make any sense unless there are underlying (or overt) sexist tones.

 

Well, you cut out the dangerous age group, Rahkir. I hope 14-year-olds are not engaging in any kind of sex; and 18/19-year-olds do tend to be a bit more savvy (usually because they are thinking about college or a career at that point). But it's that 15-17 year-old range that is the one to worry about the most, IMO. They are still in HS and are discovering their own sexuality around a bunch of guys, some of whom are "walking hormones."

I gotta love that ignore list.

 

Just because someone sees an injustice in the world, an imbalance in power that offends the sense of justice and fairness, does not make that person a sexist.

Situations existed in times past wherein the men held all the power. Most Westerners agree that this imbalance of power and choice was wrong, unjust, and immoral. Well, the shoe's on the other foot now, and to point that out doesn't mean the observer wants a return to the way things were, but rather that they would like a more balanced approach to difficult issues such as this.

I don't advocate a return to the 1800s, or even the 1950s. What I do advocate is the acknowledgement that not all men are venal, "I've got 5 kids in 5 different states -- that I know of!" pieces of <snip>, and that some cases exist wherein the man wants a say not because he is a controlling jackass, but rather because he too has views, opinions, beliefs, and perspectives that are equally as valid as the woman's.

 

Sorry, but that's a bit overboard. Men still control the vast majority of the power and wealth in the world. The courts started looking out for the well being of children instead of treating them like property -- that's the real change. Any perceived bias in the courts is a direct reflection of the quality of attorney each side has (and women are getting better at finding good attorneys).