Where is Reverend Crank to ask if this conversation is giving us an ego hard on??? — Jake

You rang?

@Ranger is doomed here, I suspect. Won't be long...

We have the right to engage in self sustaining behavior.

If a woman is in control of her own body, then that would imply that they are taking responsibility for what happens within their own body.

You see the man as being attached to the child, and somehow, responsible for it, although it is outside of his own body.

But the woman's body is HER responsibility.

The man is not responsible for what happens within it.

We live in a society where her options are great.

The man in our society, accidently impregnates a girl, and he is deemed responsible for this child.

But the woman is powerful, and is, and will always be, responsible for her own body.

You people dont see that.

You're ignoring the fact that she made a decision to have intercourse just like the man did.

The woman is responsible for her body.

The man is responsible for his.

Giving the woman assistance alleviates her of full responsibility of her body ( meaning, it takes power away from the woman, turning her into a dependent )

I dont really have time for this. I started this as a side thing to see how people would respond.

It appears i have just posted this to be attacked. I would like to thank Tim Wood for your contribution. I want people to challenge my thoughts, not attack them.

The man is not responsible for what happens within it. — Ranger

If he sticks his penis into her body and shoots cum into her body then yes he is responsible for what happened within.

Your whole argument is as thoughless as it is sexist. If you knock a woman up you have a responsibility not just to her but to the unborn child as well and that has nothing to do with who shot sperm where, it has to do with being a decent human being and taking responsibility for your actions. As I got news for you, after the baby is born it will no longer be in her body and it will need parents to provide for it and if you don't step up then you are just a loser dead beat.

I just dont see the sexism here. I'm suggesting people take responsibility. I understand that you are a professional ad hominem guy, thats fantastic and all. I'm not discriminating against women here, I am claiming that both parties are responsible as individuals for what happens within their body.

If im sick, a woman knows im sick, she agrees to kiss me anyways knowing what could happen as a result, and thn she catchs a cold, am i expected to bring her chicken noodle soup?

what if she gets sick right, and she totally wanted to kiss, and she was even warned thoroughly about the possible consequences of her actions. This girl knew what could happen. She did it anyways, and now she's sick. She needs medication, she might have to take some time off work, there are actual problems coming from whatever she caught. Is the person she kissed RESPONSIBLE for her situation when she knew exactly what could happen but did it anyways? Should that person be held responsible? True, he did kiss her. But, she could have prevented her situation with something as simple as a choice. Thats all it took to prevent the situation, is just a responsible decision.

This might not be a great analogy. I have been informed by mr crank that i am quite obnoxious and will probably be banned soon. great.

Most of what i have proposed here have been things that i believe could lead to more responsible decisions. Men need to be more responsible too. My father was a dead beat. We shouldnt be dead beat people. Thats not a good way to live, its immoral, and i do not agree with it. But in my eyes, we need to catalyze responsibility. feel like if we want to achieve this, we are going to have to hurt some feelings and do some controversial things.

its important to state this so you guys know what im talking about here.

Im not trying to exterminate the kids

Im not trying to leave mothers on their own with a child they cant support

I am not trying to bail pieces of shit out of their mistakes

I am trying to figure out how to create an environment where people think before they act. Maybe, that will come off a bit better than how i have been approaching this.

This is not a developed argument of mine. I came on here to get feedback on the causes and effects of these ideas. i did it poorly. To those who i have offended, it wasnt my intention.

The woman has the power. The man's access to women is quite different than a womans access to men. Women often have an easier time reproducing. I believe there is quite a bit of evidence to show that men do not succeed in reproduction as often. I can find that and post it here.

So, the man is gonna try to have sex, and its gonna be tough.

But he cant have sex unless the woman says its okay. This post was partly about trying to understand a way to catalyze more responsible sexual behavior in women and men.

What ive proposed here wont help men get laid more.

What it might do is give women a reason to choose their mates more responsibly.

Take the threat of becoming pregnant more seriously.

And through that change of decision making, it would alter the economy of sex.

THEORETICALLY, the patterns would change, and decisions would become more responsible.

So THEORETICALLY, in my mind, that could be a possible cause that could catalyze much more responsible sexual behavior.

You can call it sexist. I'm not a sexist, but im getting pretty used to being labelled as one.

The rationale behind requiring the father to contribute is that it's best for the child. It might not be "fair" to the father to have no say in the matter, but it's also not fair on the child to go without support from one of the people who brought them into the world.

I agree that there is very little fairness in the situation we are speaking of.

Does anybody here think that implementing this could eventually cause women to choose their mates more carefully, and as a result of this, could have an effect on the behavior of men.

Men, in an effort to become more desirable mates, i hypothesize, could also end up changing their behavior to become more desirable mates.

It would have a character effect.

No longer would utility be the main quality sought after, for security reasons, but now, character and reliability would become sought after and would become the most valuable traits that women looked for in men.

In our system now, a potential mate may be an absolute piece of crap, but if he has a bank account, he will be there to provide.

Therefore, please people, dont take this the wrong way. But in our system, it doesnt matter if the father wants to be there or not. If a women is impregnated by a wealthy man he will be obliged to financially assist her throughout the life of the child.

Man, this idea is really developing.

Would my idea catalyze responsibility or is it utter horseshit?

The main idea is

Men should be off the hook for kids.

They should be able to sever responsibility, and this should be well known before any sex ever happens with their partner.

I predict that just the knowledge of something like this being in effect would have a dramatic change on the way women choose their partners, and the standard which men are expected to BEHAVE if they want to reproduce. I believe it would also change the character of men. Creating the incentive necessary for us to be more moral creatures.

Thank you!

Should a man be held responsible for a child who a woman wants to have, but he does not. Should he? — Ranger

In my view both should have a veto right. If a woman decides to have a child despite the father vetoing it, which should require some sort of formal filing, the woman should be solely responsible for it.

Here is a crazy idea HAVE RESPONSIBLE SEX AND TALK TO YOUR PARTNER ABOUT POSSIBLE RISKS BEFORE HAVING SEX.

So, so, controversial.

I am thinking about how this would play out.

Theres a catch. If we give both parties the right to veto the child, is it will have an initial period where it wont have sunk in. This will be a period of people " suspending their disbelief " of the new way that we are treating this issue.

Now, this doesnt mean that it wont have the long term effects we are looking for.

What it does mean, is that people will have to be initially " burned " ( experience it themselves ) or witness the new ways effects on others ( experience through others ) to understand that the consequences do exist, and have an effect on both parties.

This initial period is the hard part and is the part where i believe we would see negative consequences.

Those negative consequences being both parties still acting in the same way.

Men will leave the children.

This will be horrible. But when it continues to happen, it will then catalyze the effects we are speaking of.

Women will begin to be very thoughtful about who they choose to reproduce with.

Men will notice this, and we will change our behavior accordingly.

I do believe this change would be adequate incentive for both parties to develop and grow into more thoughtful, aware, and moral creatures.

Jeremiah, i appreciate you coming back in and giving your input. you're always such a treat. What you are saying is great in theory, but the advice is not adequate. Meaning, if you got on a podium, in front of the whole world, and spoke to every human and said .

"HAVE RESPONSIBLE SEX AND TALK TO YOUR PARTNER BEFORE HAVING SEX. "

its effect would be pretty unnoticeable. Humans react to things that affect their survival, not advice.

What it does mean, is that people will have to be initially " burned " — Ranger

Not sure what you're thinking of there.

" Burned " by the flame of experience. What i mean when i use the word burned is that initially, when something new comes along, people USUALLY have to experience it in some way before they take it seriously. Before they experience it, it hasn't effected them or anyone they know right? So its a concept that they have not witnessed in practice, its just an idea.

Because people are very reluctant to believe that which they have not experienced, if what we are talking about here were implemented, there would be an initial phase of people acting like it had not been. It would take quite a few people getting burned by the process, before it started having the effect we are talking about.



Cindy heard about the new rights.

Initially Cindy didnt understand the consequences of the new rights.

Cindies friend michelle has a child, and the father walks away.

Cindy, through seeing this happen to michelle, now realizes that it is real. It is more than an idea, it is in practice.

Now, is when change happens, for the sake of survival.

Now, the women will change.

Next, men see they cant get laid any more.

Now, the men.

quote from jeremiah that i didnt know how to quote. " I understand that you feel you are too weak willed to act logically to your biological responses. However, I think if you actually try it is possible to have an adult conversation before fucking."

Jeremiah,

Yeah what you are talking about is really nice. And i gotta be honest. I prefer your way. The problem with your way, is please, look at the world. Its not working, like, at all. It's not like " have responsible sex " hasn't been suggested " and failed miserably.

So you are saying that you personally are completely incapable of having responsible sex, and yet you accuse women of being illogical when it comes to their supposed biological urges.

Cindy heard about the new rights.

Initially Cindy didnt understand the consequences of the new rights. — Ranger

Wait, for one, how can you not understand the consequence of the child being only your responsibility if one parent opts out? That's nothing complicated.

no, i didnt say that at all?


and, Women and men both being extremely illogical when it comes to our biological reproductive urges is proven. Everywhere. How blind are you ?

True, its not compicated, to some people. But some people are less comfortable with immediately understanding the real consequences of new practices. The play with fire and get burned is why i use the word " burned ". They might understand it, but its not until they see it affecting things in their environment and its consequences become a potential threat that they start " adjusting " for the sake of their survival.

You should be absolutey ashamed of your behavior.

Jeremiah, please, stop poisoning this. I'm trying to walk through an idea. You're not being helpful at all. You're very destructive. I dont know why you are doing this. I dont know what your motive is. Please, discontinue.

True, its not compicated, to some people. But some people are less comfortable with immediately understanding the real consequences of new practices. The play with fire and get burned is why i use the word " burned ". They might understand it, but its not until they see it affecting things in their environment and its consequences become a potential threat that they start " adjusting " for the sake of their survival. — Ranger

At any rate, I wouldn't consider that "getting burned."

Re the idea that women only have sex with men because they think that if they get pregnant, the guy is going to be at least forced to be financially responsible for the kid, that's too ridiculous to even bother with.

I am just saying perhaps you should be an adult before making adult decisions, and in the meantime keep your penis in your pants.

but you dont know my age, or anything else about me? So, how could you say that at all?

You don't think it is possible to have responsible sex and talk to your partner about such things before having sex, that tells me how little experience you have.

Terrapin, you're right, burned is a poor word.

Burned is what i use to describe experience that creates change.

Ill think of a different way to describe it.

And,

I didnt say that utility is the main reason for attraction. I am saying that it is one of them, and a very important factor in how a woman chooses their mate. I dont think thats something controversial to mention, security is subconsciously valuable to both women and men who are looking for potential mates.

But i didnt say any of that, you're just putting words out there that i never said.

And look at you, you're absolutey obsessed with this thread, and you've provided nothing useful at all. Why are you so obsessed with me?

security is subconsciously valuable — Ranger

I don't buy the notion of subconscious mental content.