Slashdot Mirror
Two New Male Birth Control Chemicals In Advanced Stages
BarbaraHudson writes Researchers at the University of Kansas and Harvard are working to give men more choices for avoiding unwanted pregnancies. From the article: "H2-gamendazole keeps sperm from maturing. The unfinished sperm fragments are then reabsorbed into the testis, never ending up in the semen. 'If there's no sperm, the egg's not going to get fertilized,' says Joseph Tash, a reproductive biologist at the University of Kansas Medical Center. Almost two years ago, the FDA reviewed the compound, and now the agency wants Tash to investigate if the compound remains in the semen and whether that would harm a woman if it ends up in the vagina. Jay Bradner, working with other anti-cancer researchers at Harvard, discovered that the JQ1 molecule blocked a bromodomain in cancer cells, causing them to forget how to be cancer. One side effect is that JQ1 also obstructed a testicle-specific bromodomain called BRDT, making the sex cells that would otherwise produce sperm non-functional — mice treated with JQ1 can hump with abandon yet generate zero mouselings. Researchers are looking for a version of the molecule that works on the testicle protein only, to avoid any weird side effects."
It would be awesome if this could be part of a men's liberation movement, like how women were liberated in the 60s when the pill became available. Not just contraception, a change in the way men look at themselves.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
This is a murder of potentially trillions of human beings and as such an obvious affront to god!
TFA: [...] discovered that the JQ1 molecule blocked a bromodomain in cancer cells, causing them to forget how to be cancer. [...] Researchers are looking for a version of the molecule that works on the testicle protein only, to avoid any weird side effects
Since when slowing down cancer is a "weird side effect"? :D
This could really help men everywhere, there are a ton of options for women but very few for men. I can only hope when the day comes that it's viewed as a positive direction from all rights groups. Doubtful, but one can dream.
"anti-cancer researchers at Harvard, discovered that the JQ1 molecule blocked a bromodomain in cancer cells, causing them to forget how to be cancer."
"Researchers are looking for a version of the molecule that works on the testicle protein only, to avoid any weird side effects."
Umm... can I please have the side-effects, if the side effects are, you know, NOT GETTING CANCER?
Birth control is a womens issue.
You won't get a judge to agree with you if you accidentally father a child.
I won't be putting any unknown chemicals into my body for HER sake.
And yet you want her to put chemicals into her body for YOUR fun and enjoyment. Nice troll :-(
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Birth control is a womens issue.
You won't get a judge to agree with you if you accidentally father a child.
I like how this issue is always 1-sided. It's a woman's choice if she wants to have an abortion, but the guy doesn't have a choice to not support the child if the woman wants to have it but he doesn't.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
You can have something to say about when you have to carry the embryo/fetus for 9 months and then go through delivery. Until pregnancy and birth are 2-sided, your opinion is of little value.
Why don't all you guys out there try it first. In the meantime time I may just go for the vasectomy.
This is news, but not with useful content for nerds..... ;-/
The number of responses here along the lines of "women always trick men into marriage by getting pregnant" or "birth control is a woman's responsibility" make me sad for my gender. I can't be the only man on Slashdot who 1) respects women (my wife and I both manage our portions of birth control together - I would never suggest that's HER job and not for me to be bothered with), 2) sees fatherhood as a positive outcome - not something that is only entered into via trickery, and 3) would like to see new birth control methods available on the market (whether or not this one would work for my wife and I aside, the more options the better). Can I?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
It certainly seems to leave both parties less uneasy about the potential long term impacts of taking pills.
false rape claims are between 2 and 40% depending on who you listen to, personally I think its around 10% despite no real conclusive research done on it. Given the castrate and murder then check facts mentality America has degenerated into (thinking of rolling stone here) its a serious concern for males everywhere (at least in the us)
Really. The best way to avoid 'accidental' father hood is _________? If this wasn't slashdot, you'd get one guess.
Don't be silly, wrap your willy.
i'm JQ'ed!
You should have something to say when you have to deal with 18 years of financial responsibility wile having no/little interaction with an actual child.
I look forward to your paper in a few years on the subject. It looks like you've already gotten it almost all written, congratulations! Simply plug in the data once it's available, and I'm sure it'll be accepted to $PRESTIGIOUS_JOURNAL straight away.
I didn't realize straw men could father children. Thank you for enlightening us.
Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
Sounds better than the method studied in 2013- having gold nano-rods injected into the testes and only lasting a few months. http://www.rsc.org/chemistrywo...
Why? It takes two to tango.
Because the only satisfactorily effective means of birth control are all in the hands of women, from the pill through the morning after pill to abortion. Additionally, as women would have us believe, pregnancy doesn't affect men nearly as much as it affects women. It seems only natural that women should take responsibility for that then. It's a shame that the responsibility seems to end when someone has to pay for the result.
Male contraceptives will cause a lot of women to be childless, women who would now find a sucker and "forget" the pill. You see, birth control isn't just a burden, it's also a form of control that isn't implied by its name, one that men don't currently have.
If the sperm is destroyed, is there anything left that contains DNA in the semen?
If not that this could be a big boon to rapists who no longer have to worry about leaving their DNA behind.
you insensitive clod.
if you actually cared about stds you probably should be promoting banning alcohol as I'm quite sure that leads to the majority of bad decisions
This sounds like a big improvement over the original male birth control pill. That one was 3 inches in diameter. How did it work? Well, you put it in your shoe, and it makes you limp.
Relying on what the other party says isn't nearly as effective when talking about disease transmission, and kind of silly when it comes to preventing pregnancies.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Well guess what? Maybe you should have taken a little bit of responsibility by using a condom?
That does not address the original issue. Would you find it acceptable for someone to say "Maybe you should have taken a little responsibility and not spread your legs" to a woman? If not, why is it o.k. to say that to the guy?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
No. It is called D&D but some say it is only a placebo.
Because the only satisfactorily effective means of birth control are all in the hands of women, from the pill through the morning after pill to abortion
Women are also in control of the global condom supply, apparently.
How does something so completely wrong get modded so highly?
And still to this day aids is a huge concern to homosexual males simply because they equate not being able to knock their partner up with safe sex. So we know with absolutely certainty that that will not happen, a large significant population will use this instead of using a condom; And many of them will die, but not until after they spread AIDs to even more people. There are no technical solutions to anything that are worth a damn. The onyl solution to pregnancy and STDs is common sense, unfortunately this "solution" will only act as a smoke screen for many.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
"The onyl solution to pregnancy and STDs is common sense, unfortunately this "solution" will only act as a smoke screen for many."
My girlfriend menstruates 24x7x365 when on birth control. Others affect her blood pressure severely or cause enormous weight gain and acne.
We've been monogamous for years and rely on condoms.
Your opinion that people in our situation don't matter is misguided and immoral.
Just as he should have something to say about having to FUND her indulgent decision for the next 20 years.
That's retarded. People have unprotected sex because it's better. Way better. Even, I would say *especially* people in long-term, monogamous, trusting relationships, who still happen to not want kids at the moment.
As opposed to the responsibility of realizing you nor daddy have the funds to raise children right now and making the appropriate choice? Feminists hate equality when it's time to take responsibility. Then they want the men to step in and clean up after them.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
OK, but like you already said you already have options. You have already mentioned condoms, there is vasectomies (and freezing sperm), abstinence, etc. With this pill you might of died of aids before even meeting her, so it does not really seem like a solution. Besides, most people in monogamous relationships get a little on the side. I have heard, though not seen the actually papers, that something like a third of all children born in wedlock are from affairs.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Y'all are so friggin paranoid, wow.
She got her hands all up in there while having sex? Kudos to her, she's obviously very talented.
That 2% also includes dudes who did not use a condom, but were too embarrassed to say so (or too idiot to realize so).
D&D players can have children..., they just have a higher likelihood of being half-elven.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
If was still young and in relationships that require condoms, you can bet your ass I'd _ALSO_ be using this (not instead. ALSO.)
Condoms break, girls lie about taking pills. Futures are ruinned. Hormones make sure teenagers can't think straight when it happens. Rightists make sure its as hard as possible to fix problems after they happen (even if you're in an area where stuff like Plan B is readily available, there's often still a stigma behind it, and then hesitation makes the time window slip by, and then more drastic measures are the only option...and its how your life gets fucked).
I never ended up in a situation where it got to be an issue, but if this had been available, I would have jumped on it. A little peace of mind doesn't hurt.
W...ah...wo.....I don't even....
I don't know where to start, but I already typed this much, so I'll just hit the submit button below one of the most epic fail post of all time.
Even if its a joke, it takes skills to write something like that. I clap at your trolling abilities, oh great master.
While it is nice to see continued research along these avenues, I feel that methodology that require us to alter internal, chemical bodily functions via some sort are going to have pretty considerable side effects. Even after more than a half-century of research, we've still not been able to create female chemical/hormonal birth control that doesn't have significant side effects and trade offs. While many women put up with the side effects, which can range from lack of libido, depression, weight gain, acne, mood swings, to rarely more serious cardiovascular issues and other dangers, it is far from a simple choice. Best outcomes often require a knowledgeable and caring physician to tweak and find out what particular product works best for a given woman's individual chemistry.
Keep in mind that all of these issues come from more or less, attempting to safely replicate a very natural part of a woman's reproductive cycle: pregnancy. Men have no such natural state of post-pubescent infertility, which makes it even more difficult to find a solution for for male birth control that comes in a pill. Thus, lot of attempts that seem promising end up failing thanks to the domino effect of messing with hormones that do more than one thing. As we become more technologically advanced the possibility of compiling a "custom" compound with less interaction outside the desired sphere is more likely, but as the article mentions this is still a long, long way from being deemed safe and effective in humans, especially over the long term. However, there is a much better male birth control solution that is going through trials in the US and Europe: VasalGel
VasalGel is a trade name for a well known process that has gone through more than 20 years of human trials in India: RISUG. RISUG is basically a significantly upgraded, reversible vasectomy. The process begins by injecting an inexpensive, safe polymer into the vas deferens (the same tubes cut/blocked in the case of male sterilization) . This polymer occludes, but does not totally block the flow of sperm, which is a major improvement as it avoids the side effects found in both "open" (ie sperm dripping into surrounding tissues, causing sperm granulomas and training the immune system to attack said sperm, a possible cause of failed vasectomy reversal) and "closed" (ie epididimitis, "blowout", reduced overall production and more) vasectomies. As the sperm pass through they touch the polymer which in essence denatures them, robbing them of the chemical charge they need for viability. Those that aren't immediately destroyed still lose their viability to penetrate the ovum and fertilize, breaking down long before All sperm fragments are reabsorbed by the body and it doesn't seem to limit quality or quantity of future sperm production. There are long human trials in India, where men had the same RISUG polymer placed for in excess of a decade without any issues and with continued effectiveness! Furthermore, the process is safely reversible over 98% of the time. Another injection, this time of a a complimentary safe agent, dissolves the polymer and returns the vas deferns to pristine condition, allowing reproduction.
This method allows men to take control of their reproduction in a safe, long term, convenient way that I think will be very alluring to many. By putting effort into such a localized effect, it means there is unlikely to be the sort of side effects that can happen when you're trying to mess with hormones, attach things to certain receptors and more. The Indian trials have been successful indeed and similar methods have been investigated in other nations. So why don't we have this procedure available to us now? Well, the answer as you might expect: Money. It isn't exactly profitable to provide a man one injection that will prevent pregnancy every 10 years. Consider that in the US, female IUDs that are much more comfortable, newer, and have lesser side effects aren't available for a similar reason: despite their existen
I'm sure that's what really happened.
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
I don't know where you live, but here there is equal responsibility.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
but I know lots and lots of guys who's girlfriend somehow became pregnant while on a pill that's 99.9% effective.
As for fatherhood: 40 years of declining wages have made fatherhood a tough sell. I grew up around and still know a pretty rough crowd. If you don't make much money and probably never will fatherhood doesn't end well. It's why birth rates in Japan keep falling. Nobody's paying us enough to raise a family...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
In the period of the review, there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape and 111,891 for domestic violence. During the same period there were 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape, six for making false allegation of domestic violence and three for making false allegations of both rape and domestic violence.
So you know, there's some conclusive research you can look at.
In the states, if mom chooses to have the baby, dad is held financially accountable, even if not married. He can be put in prison until he pays, with interest. Basically, it's debtors prison.
Personally, I am happily married with 2 beautiful kids that my wife and I both decided to have as planned pregnancies. Her cousin OTOH has tried to trap a number of men as have some of her friends.. Its rather disgusting to see such disregard for the life of a child from its own mother, who is attempting to use it for personal financial gain. I'm not suggesting all women behave that way or that no men do anything similar.. Just that the option for a man to control whether his sperm will or won't cause a pregnancy is a great thing for society where it can prevent unwanted pregnancies in this specific case.
And still to this day aids is a huge concern to homosexual males simply because they equate not being able to knock their partner up with safe sex. So we know with absolutely certainty that that will not happen, a large significant population will use this instead of using a condom; And many of them will die, but not until after they spread AIDs to even more people. There are no technical solutions to anything that are worth a damn. The onyl solution to pregnancy and STDs is common sense, unfortunately this "solution" will only act as a smoke screen for many.
So let me get this straight (no pun intended). You are saying gay people will use the male pill as a replacement for condoms thus increasing stds? Wtf lol. Education, free birth control and free condoms are a much better option.
Data puts it at 0.6% in the UK: http://www.theguardian.com/com...
In the period of the review, there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape and 111,891 for domestic violence. During the same period there were 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape, six for making false allegation of domestic violence and three for making false allegations of both rape and domestic violence.
So you know, there's some conclusive research you can look at.
That's not research its public records which aren't very accurate. I'm not sure about Europe, either in case law or in social pressures, that's true. However you can be assured the actual false claims were higher considering that it takes a pretty high level of evidence to convict someone. Assuming no false convictions (a dubious assumption) there is around a 30% margin of people who are acquitted - some may be false accusations with no substantial evidence. In the United States its so taboo to even suggest the claim is false you need incontrovertible evidence to even stand a chance. The reality is a study would likely reveal a false reporting of rape much higher than actual conviction rate.
No, I am saying we already have a sample population to test theories on. The gay community, which is predominately like the male population as a whole. They are in all strata of this population and as such act as a very good sample. One major difference between these populations, and the only hard physical difference in their relationships, is that gay men do not have to worry about pregnancy, and as such we see 40 times as much aids in the homosexual population. We see a tiny majority host the vast majority of STDs. The addition of these pills will put the whole population in the exact situation that gay men have been in for generations.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Prosecutions, not convictions.
I'll assume you are serious here. Gay sex involves anal sex in case you aren't aware. A large reason that they have a higher transmission rate is the anal sex vs vaginal sex. It's not about irresponsibility. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Yep.
Once you blow your load in her, its not your choice anymore, but it's your responsibility.
Don't like the idea of personal responsibility, keep it in your pants. You give her your load, you give her the choice as well: 100%. And yes, you are accountable even if you aren't married. So man up and deal with it. Want to get laid without the risk, find one of your buddies and exchange favors; because you aren't going to get him pregnant.
You want to bang chicks, you take the risks.
Liberatards talk about financial responsibility, but are really fucking pussies about it.
Ahh yes i misread. It's not even possible to convict someone of false rape in the USA. I respect women in general but have no respect at all for those who lie about rape, on either side. It's the women who lie that make it so much harder for the women who don't - not to mention the innocent people.
...Forgot I was on the internet. Stay classy, guys. And gals. Everyone who posted an opinion, really.
Well guess what? Maybe you should have taken a little bit of responsibility by using a condom?
That sword cuts both ways - the female could have exercised some common sense too. The problem is this: A man cannot stand up in court and say "The pregnancy is still prior to the first trimester. Since I do not at this time feel ready to be a parent nor ready for any financial obligations I hereby renounce all my obligations to the child." The female currently has this option. The male does not. Women currently have no need to act responsibly because the state ensures that she and her offspring will be taken care of even if she acts irresponsibly.
Similarly, with a pill for men it is almost gauranteed that the result would be more freedom for men and less for women. No matter how much a women may want a child she can, with this pill, be easily deceived into staying with a male longer than she would have. Like the hidden ovulation of women, this pill wuold let a man easily deceive a women.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Used properly by themselves, they're effective at preventing pregnancy AND preventing the transmission of STDs. Throw in a spermicide and you've got nothing to worry about.
Relying on what the other party says isn't nearly as effective when talking about disease transmission, and kind of silly when it comes to preventing pregnancies.
Yes, but there's a lot more to sex than simply penetrating. You miss out on all the other lovely stuff if you have to use a condom.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
I'm sure that's what really happened.
Happened three times with three different women to me. Luckily they didn't get pregnant, but women ripping the condom off is not a rare thing.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
She got her hands all up in there while having sex? Kudos to her, she's obviously very talented.
Happened three times with me - sex is not all missionary position, in the dark, with your eyes closed, you know. In just about any rear entry position the women can easily wait for the point of no return and then slip it out, yank off the condom and slip it back in. We're talking literally less than 2 seconds when you're 3 seconds away from blowing your load. Seriously, because it's happened to me with three different women I thought it was pretty common.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
"Always"? Which comments would those be? In any case, some men are tricked into being fathers, or think they are fathers. The chances of that happening are small, but the consequences (the next 20 years of your life) are large.
How about respecting people?
Women have a plethora of BC options open to them - various IUD's, the pill, diaphragms. None of which (well, occasionally diaphragms) interfere with her pleasure during sex. Condoms do interfere for men, and most American men are already missing half their nerves to begin with, when their genitals were cut without their consent as infants.
Except that's still crap. Either "you made a choice, now deal with the consequences" applies to both parents, or neither. And you guys have yet to explain why 9 months of a women's life is sacred, yet 18 years of a man's life is nothing worthy of consideration.
How about you re-read the first sentence? BC for women does not reduce the sensation for them, with the occasional exception of diaphragms. Condoms do reduce sensation for men, most of whom (in the U.S.) already had their sensation reduced by half via infant genital cutting.
Maybe ponder the hypocrisy of saying "you made a choice, now deal with the consequences" to only one person?
Both sides should cover more than their asses. Right now, the woman can by taking the pill. The man, unfortunately, usually whines about having to use a condom. "It doesn't feel the same." "It's like taking a shower with a rain coat on." "It ruins the spontaneity of the moment."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Another guy who whines about having to use a condom and then complains if the woman gets pregnant. BTW, you completely forgot STDs, many of which are becoming drug resistant, and also the silent killer - HIV/AIDS, which now infects more straight people than gay people.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
There's no hypocrisy. If you look through my comments, it applies equally to both sexes. You're stupid enough to have unprotected sex, you BOTH get to deal with the consequences, obviously.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Both sides should cover more than their asses. Right now, the woman can by taking the pill. The man, unfortunately, usually whines about having to use a condom. "It doesn't feel the same." "It's like taking a shower with a rain coat on." "It ruins the spontaneity of the moment."
Regardless, the women has the option of saying, after the fact, "I don't want this child therefore I won't have this child." The man has no such option. What do you think will happen if men had the option of not paying maintenance in exchange for not seeing the child? This is a nice thought-experiment that is actually feasible to follow through on.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Another guy who whines about having to use a condom and then complains if the woman gets pregnant. BTW, you completely forgot STDs, many of which are becoming drug resistant, and also the silent killer - HIV/AIDS, which now infects more straight people than gay people.
That's completely irrelevant to the fact that sex is much more than penetration and that a condom ceases to be of any use if you perform play involving bodily fluids and/or sexual contact. The fact that you've twice mischaracterised my positions as "guy doesn't want to man up and take all responsibility for accidental pregnancy" more than displays your own position.
If you really want to go down that route, why not acknowledge that because women have more options and more opportunities to prevent accidental children, they should have more responsibility? A pill that gives men the same ability to prevent accidental children that women currently enjoy (though not all of the same opportunities and options) is something that could change how couples interact.
Currently the woman in a relationship has all the power w.r.t. if and when to have children. A pill for men will remove much of that power.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
It's just a tool.
It's how one sees it and uses it that liberates or enslaves.
One man's magical no-baby pill is another man's realization that no one want's his genetic material, only his sexual favors.
But being a cynical asshole, I hereby prophesize that this will be labeled as an "instrument of rape culture".
As the song says, this ain't no garden of Eden, this isn't the summer of love. It's no longer the '60s.
Now everything exists only as polar extremes. White-black, good-evil, love-hate...
You can't not choose sides, mildly dislike something or be ambivalent towards it.
You must love it or mildly praise it - or you are an -ist of some kind and a hater.
Which is now the ultimate reduction - Reductio ad Osoribus.
And since one pill liberated women, only logical black-white conclusion is that this one will enslave them.
Or are you an -ist of some kind?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Regardless, the women has the option of saying, after the fact, "I don't want this child therefore I won't have this child." The man has no such option.
What would you think the situation would be if men got pregnant? Wouldn't you be complaining about being forced to carry a kid to term as an infringement on your rights? Realistically, such after-the-fact complaining just shows that you don't want to be held responsible for your part in not taking precautions. You know the old saying, "Trust, but verify." There are men going around claiming to have a vasectomy ... the same advice applies to women.
What do you think will happen if men had the option of not paying maintenance in exchange for not seeing the child?
Hey, there are plenty of women who would jump at the opportunity because their ex is an ex for a reason. However, the courts are focused (rightly) first on what's best for the child - and that means that both parents are going to have to contribute time and resources.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Another guy who whines about having to use a condom and then complains if the woman gets pregnant. BTW, you completely forgot STDs, many of which are becoming drug resistant, and also the silent killer - HIV/AIDS, which now infects more straight people than gay people.
That's completely irrelevant to the fact that sex is much more than penetration and that a condom ceases to be of any use if you perform play involving bodily fluids and/or sexual contact.
If you do that knowingly, you have absolutely no right to whine about the consequences. You did the deed. You chose to take that risk in pursuit of hedonism. Your attitude the the same as a crackhead who complains that it's affecting their health, or someone base jumping and then getting arrested. Actions have predictable consequences.
The fact that you've twice mischaracterised my positions as "guy doesn't want to man up and take all responsibility for accidental pregnancy"
Never said that. I said each party has to be responsible for the stupidity that results in an unwanted pregnancy. You could have avoided the whole question by wearing a condom. The fact that you both want to play around exchanging body fluids is on both of you.
If you really want to go down that route, why not acknowledge that because women have more options and more opportunities to prevent accidental children, they should have more responsibility?
Condoms are still necessary to prevent transmission of STDs, especially when even in "trusted" relationships like marriage, cheating is statistically likely at some point. That's the reality, and a birth control pill, for men OR women, doesn't change that.
A pill that gives men the same ability to prevent accidental children that women currently enjoy (though not all of the same opportunities and options) is something that could change how couples interact.
Never said it wouldn't.
Currently the woman in a relationship has all the power w.r.t. if and when to have children. A pill for men will remove much of that power.
No true. Both parties have various contraceptive options. But I find it interesting that you continually frame this as a "power" issue. Your options:
You can wrap your willie
Protect your boner, silly,
Don't want kids?
Then don't act derpy.
Vasectomy too
Snip snip sterile you
But no, you think
Loss of manhood too.
It's your pick
Unprotected sex is not a "kick"
No accountability?
Then protect your dick!
What you got to lose?
Get your freak on how you choose
But "Caught up in the moment"s
Is really no excuse.
Burma Shave
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Regardless, the women has the option of saying, after the fact, "I don't want this child therefore I won't have this child." The man has no such option.
What would you think the situation would be if men got pregnant? Wouldn't you be complaining about being forced to carry a kid to term as an infringement on your rights?
You are seriously responding to an actual fact (women have an option that men don't) with a hypothetical? How about this - no man has ever complained about carrying a child to term. Logically you cannot argue that X is a problem if X has never happened before. Therefore since your "what if men were pregnant they'd be just as bad if not worse" assertion has never been observed you'd be wise to withdraw it as a component of your argument. Seriously, we have more evidence of KT extinction than of men complaining about carrying a child to term, and that former one happened some 65 million years ago!
Realistically, such after-the-fact complaining just shows that you don't want to be held responsible for your part in not taking precautions. You know the old saying, "Trust, but verify." There are men going around claiming to have a vasectomy ... the same advice applies to women.
Such after the fact complaining only come from men because women don't have to complain, they can revert the mistake.
What do you think will happen if men had the option of not paying maintenance in exchange for not seeing the child?
Hey, there are plenty of women who would jump at the opportunity because their ex is an ex for a reason.
They currently have that opportunity. A simple divorce contract includes maintenance and parental contact. There is no reason that a women cannot specify $0 and no contact in the divorce contract. Most men would sign that. All courts would sanction it and issue a decree of divorce as a result. The power to "jump at that chance" as you put it, is already in women's hands - why don't they do that?
However, the courts are focused (rightly) first on what's best for the child - and that means that both parents are going to have to contribute time and resources.
The courts only intervene if the parents cannot agree to an arrangement. If neither parent approaches the court for relief of some sort, then the court rubberstamps the out-of-court settlement and issues the decree of divorce. Courts will not get involved until someone approaches the court.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Another guy who whines about having to use a condom and then complains if the woman gets pregnant. BTW, you completely forgot STDs, many of which are becoming drug resistant, and also the silent killer - HIV/AIDS, which now infects more straight people than gay people.
That's completely irrelevant to the fact that sex is much more than penetration and that a condom ceases to be of any use if you perform play involving bodily fluids and/or sexual contact.
If you do that knowingly, you have absolutely no right to whine about the consequences. You did the deed. You chose to take that risk in pursuit of hedonism. Your attitude the the same as a crackhead who complains that it's affecting their health, or someone base jumping and then getting arrested. Actions have predictable consequences.
The fact that you've twice mischaracterised my positions as "guy doesn't want to man up and take all responsibility for accidental pregnancy"
Never said that. I said each party has to be responsible for the stupidity that results in an unwanted pregnancy. You could have avoided the whole question by wearing a condom. The fact that you both want to play around exchanging body fluids is on both of you.
But only one party has a chance to revert that mistake before it becomes permanent. Notwithstanding that one party should have worn a rubber, or the other party should have used any of the numerous options available.
If you really want to go down that route, why not acknowledge that because women have more options and more opportunities to prevent accidental children, they should have more responsibility?
Condoms are still necessary to prevent transmission of STDs, especially when even in "trusted" relationships like marriage, cheating is statistically likely at some point. That's the reality, and a birth control pill, for men OR women, doesn't change that.
They may be necessary for some relationships. You're extrapolating that everyone should where a condom for each sex act because some couples have untrustworthy partners. The reality is that you aren't going to change human nature when it comes to sex - people want what people want. No amount of puritan hand-waving is going to change the fact that most couples in a long-term relationship aren't going to use a condom. A pill for men makes some of the important issues go away: I do not claim that the ones that remain are unimportant.
A pill that gives men the same ability to prevent accidental children that women currently enjoy (though not all of the same opportunities and options) is something that could change how couples interact.
Never said it wouldn't.
Currently the woman in a relationship has all the power w.r.t. if and when to have children. A pill for men will remove much of that power.
No true. Both parties have various contraceptive options.
I can name five options for women, seven if you include after the fact options. Name two for men.
But I find it interesting that you continually frame this as a "power" issue. Your options:
The women gets to decide if and when she gets pregnant regardless of the mans opinion. I'm not framing it as a power issue, that's just the way it is. A pill for men would indeed prevent women from unilaterally deciding to have a child without discussing it with their partner first. That is indeed, no matter how you "frame" it, a reduction of power for women, as long as a non-zero number of women ever decided to have children without their partners consent.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
You've proven you're an idiot, and you don't have a clue.
Why? Because you make blanket statements that are not true. Courts do not rubber-stamp divorce agreements when there are children involved, and additionally a woman cannot unilaterally specify no access to the kids and no child support.
So when you say
Most men would sign that. All courts would sanction it and issue a decree of divorce as a result. The power to "jump at that chance" as you put it, is already in women's hands - why don't they do that?
... either provide proof that most men would sign that (custody and access battles in court say otherwise), and that courts would in fact "rubber-stamp" such agreements, or put a condom on it, mkay.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You've proven you're an idiot, and you don't have a clue.
Please, no insults. Besides, I've displayed more clue than you - I didn't respond to a statement about existing situations (Women can revert this mistake) with a hypothetical (what if men were pregnant?). I note that you've let that one go - wise choice indeed.
Why? Because you make blanket statements that are not true. Courts do not rubber-stamp divorce agreements when there are children involved, and additionally a woman cannot unilaterally specify no access to the kids and no child support.
I didn't say a women could. I said a couple could agree to it. And courts will not get involved if both parents agree to something.
So when you say
Most men would sign that. All courts would sanction it and issue a decree of divorce as a result. The power to "jump at that chance" as you put it, is already in women's hands - why don't they do that?
... either provide proof that most men would sign that (custody and access battles in court say otherwise), and that courts would in fact "rubber-stamp" such agreements, or put a condom on it, mkay.
Actually, a divorce contract is the same as any other - the courts only get involved when they are approached to provide relief and/or remedies. You are claiming that a court will get involved in a civil matter even when it has not been approached to do so. I'm sorry but I've not heard of a single jurisdiction in which a court will look at an agreement between two parties and then refuse to stamp it.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
I can name five options for women, seven if you include after the fact options. Name two for men.
However, you continue to insist the following:
Currently the woman in a relationship has all the power w.r.t. if and when to have children. .
... despite the fact that men have the power to avoid impregnating someone and having children. Getting a snip-snip and the condom are only two of many ...
I can name five options for women, seven if you include after the fact options. Name two for men.
Guess you never had sex ed in school.
For men
1. Use a condom
2. Bring along some spermicide - "no sex unless we use this"
3. Vasectomy
4. Oral sex
5. Anal sex
6. Anabolic steroids
7. Untreated STDs
8. Too much weed (deformed sperm)
9. to (at least) 99 . See original "Joy of Sex."
And there are a lot more than 7 for women as well.
1. Tell the guy "no nookie if you don't use a condom"
2. Spermicide
3. The "female condom"
4. The diaphragm
5. The IUD
6. The vaginal ring
7. The estrogen patch
8. The implant - good for 3 years!
9. The pill
Now for the after-the-fact ones
10. The morning-after pill
11. Abortion
12. The copper "T" IUD - good up to 5 days after unprotected sex.
13. Dinoprostone injection
14 Misoprostol and mifepristone - up to 2 months after pregnancy.
And the "during"
15. Oral sex
16. Anal sex
17 to (at least) 99 . See original "Joy of Sex."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I can name five options for women, seven if you include after the fact options. Name two for men.
Guess you never had sex ed in school.
For men 1. Use a condom 2. Bring along some spermicide - "no sex unless we use this"
Spermicide isn't a contraceptive - it's roughly a 2 in 3 chance of actually working. It's only recommended use is with condoms.
3. Vasectomy
Great - you've got two! One is permanent and rarely reversible, but at least you have two.
4. Oral sex
Not listed as a contraceptive... well, just about anywhere.
5. Anal sex
Also not listed as a contraceptive anywhere.
6. Anabolic steroids
Also not listed as a contraceptive anywhere.
7. Untreated STDs
Also not listed as a contraceptive anywhere.
8. Too much weed (deformed sperm)
Also not listed as a contraceptive anywhere.
9. to (at least) 99 . See original "Joy of Sex."
Lovely - a citation. But I don't see a listing of 'contraceptive' anywhere near this book, or in relation to it, nor ... well, anywhere. This is not a contraceptive either.
Look on the bright side - you made it to at least two contraceptives for men, nevermind the fact that one is permanent. You still ignore the fact that if the pregnancy is a mistake the women has the option to reverse that mistake. The man doesn't get that option.
And ultimately that is what a male pill comes down to - it gives the man one more option to have sex without consequences. I find it hard to imagine that that sort of freedom won't fundamentally change how couples interact, and the change will, I fear, be for the worse for women.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Please, no insults. Besides, I've displayed more clue than you - I didn't respond to a statement about existing situations (Women can revert this mistake) with a hypothetical (what if men were pregnant?). I note that you've let that one go - wise choice indeed.
If men could get pregnant the morning-after pill would be available on demand and ship with a six-pack of beer and a large pizza. I was pointing out the difference in attitudes - guys almost always respond to an unwanted pregnancy by saying "I be with you when you need me - to go to the abortion clinic".
And yet guys can just get a vasectomy or use a condom or have oral/anal sex with their partner - problem solved.
... but as you said, you don't want to use a condom ... awww, poor bay-bee. In other words, you are willingly engaging in conduct that you know can result in pregnancy.
Next, you claim
"I didn't say a women could. I said a couple could agree to it. And courts will not get involved if both parents agree to something."
You are claiming that a court will get involved in a civil matter even when it has not been approached to do so. I'm sorry but I've not heard of a single jurisdiction in which a court will look at an agreement between two parties and then refuse to stamp it.
Here in Canada (and this is not the only country to do this) there are rules for fixing the amount each parent pays in child support.
The judge is obliged by federal law to see that these rules are enforced to the benefit of the child. Each agreement is reviewed for compliance by the court to these rules before the decision is rendered. No rubber stamps here. The final amount can be modified by the court if either party has a change in situation, or the child's needs change (schooling, medical, etc).
So now you've heard of 13 jurisdictions (each of the 10 provinces and 3 territories has additional rules in addition to this). Look around and you'll find more.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
When you can show a bunch of people who have gotten pregnant through oral or anal sex, then you'll have a point. Until then, they are forms of sex, and they don't result in pregnancy.
It's been known for decades that anabolic steroids can render the man sterile. Untreated STDs can do the same thing. So can too much weed. So can cancers that require the ablation of the testicles. So can radiation treatments.
Plus, you can just not have sex at all if you're not able to accept the inherent risks. Go invest in a RealDoll and knock yourself out.
You still ignore the fact that if the pregnancy is a mistake the women has the option to reverse that mistake. The man doesn't get that option
So what? You knew your risks and options "going in" (pun intended) and also knew the possible consequences. You say it isn't fair. News flash - life isn't fair.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Using a condom is a somewhat different experience, and I prefer without. Doesn't mean it isn't a whole lot of fun with the condom on.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The problem is that your idea of a women being responsible easily accepts her committing fraud and using a man as her wallet, hiding behind the state to condemn a man to slavery with no just cause.
The problem is that your idea of a women being responsible easily accepts her committing fraud and using a man as her wallet, hiding behind the state to condemn a man to slavery with no just cause.
That's a lie. The man has the power to "prevent himself from being used as a wallet" - put on a condom, use spermicides, engage in oral and/or anal sex, get a vasectomy, only choose a partner who has had their tubes tied, or a hysterectomy, or is otherwise infertile.
If you decide to forgo these options and willfully expose yourself to the risk of creating an unwanted pregnancy, then you have no more right to whine about the consequences than anyone else doing something stupid.
Also, at least here, if 2 people create a kid and they both share custody and other direct 50% of the time each, there's no child support payable. And there's no "palimony" for couples who are living together "common law" as opposed to marriage, so using a guy as a wallet doesn't exactly float. The courts expect both parents to provide for the needs of the child according to their abilities, the amounts being set by statute.
I guess you need to move to a more modern jurisdiction.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Here in Canada (and this is not the only country to do this) there are rules for fixing the amount each parent pays in child support.
The judge is obliged by federal law to see that these rules are enforced to the benefit of the child. Each agreement is reviewed for compliance by the court to these rules before the decision is rendered. No rubber stamps here. The final amount can be modified by the court if either party has a change in situation, or the child's needs change (schooling, medical, etc).
So now you've heard of 13 jurisdictions (each of the 10 provinces and 3 territories has additional rules in addition to this). Look around and you'll find more.
That page you linked to does not support your claim that a judge is obliged to get involved. Actually, if you had even bothered to read the "About Child Support Page" on the very website you linked to you would see this (not paraphrasing, actual quote from the page) being the official view of the Canadian Justice System:
Sometimes, one parent will decide that he or she does not want child support from the other parent.
And, also from the Canadian Justice System, same link as above:
You and the other parent may set up your own child support agreement out of court. Or you can ask a judge to determine an amount. It will likely be best if you can reach an agreement out of court.
Further, also from the Canadian Justice System... on this page over here:
If you are applying for a divorce under the Divorce Act and will pay or receive child support, the child support amount can be set by:
agreement, or
court order, which can be made by consent, if you and the other parent agree on the amount. If you and the other parent cannot agree, a judge will decide.
This is precisely what I said above. A couple may agree to no maintenance. Your district apparently says the same thing. I know this won't change your mind (you've tied your ego to your argument, so you won't be able to process the fact that your argument is wrong), but at least anyone reading this far down can see conclusive evidence that, for the Canadian Justice System at least, the system makes it explicit it more than one document that a court won't step in unless there is disagreement!
To get the most out of your laws, I highly recommend that you read them. I'm tired of educating you so probably won't reply again unless you post factually incorrect information like you did in this thread. I'm even going to ignore your attempt to redefine "contraceptive" - most people aren't so stupid as to believe that STD's are contraceptives just because they may block fertilisation.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
When you can show a bunch of people who have gotten pregnant through oral or anal sex, then you'll have a point. Until then, they are forms of sex, and they don't result in pregnancy.
It's been known for decades that anabolic steroids can render the man sterile. Untreated STDs can do the same thing. So can too much weed. So can cancers that require the ablation of the testicles. So can radiation treatments.
Unfortunately for your argument, "not result in pregnancy" is not the same as "contraceptive". I know you want it to be, but sorry - there isn't a single source that agrees with you.
- none of your "contraceptive options" above are listed as contraceptives.
Okay, how about a more authoritative source - whoops, your "options" aren't listed there either.
Okay, how about this - you find a source for your claim that STD's are a contraceptive option for men? I've done enough to correct your general misinformation about the jurisdiction you live in - you don't even know the laws you live under so I'm not really surprised that you hurl insults at those are are aware of your laws.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
And yet, any agreement that is going to be approved by the court is not going to be "rubber-stamped" - it has to conform to the rules. Provinces, including the one I am in, have exercised their right to add additional conditions. Go before a judge with a child support agreement, expect it to be scrutinized. It's public policy here nowadays. Judges will automatically suspect that any amount less than the guidelines is being used to dodge taxes in return for getting a smaller payment "under the table."
On top of that, things like getting an order to garnish wages, seizing income tax refunds, don't even require a subsequent court hearing - just go to the Percepteur des pensions alimentare with the agreement, and the seizure goes through automatically. No hearing or other proof required. To get it lifted, the person has to go to court and prove the seizure is in error.
They can also suspend your driver's license, passport, and other permits.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Birth control, also known as contraception and fertility control, are methods or devices used to prevent pregnancy. Planning, provision and use of birth control is called family planning. Birth control methods have been used since ancient times, but effective and safe methods only became available in the 20th century.
That's why coitus interruptus and the rhythm method are both classified as (very poor) contraceptive methods. Same way as anal and oral sex are methods methods to prevent pregnancy.
STDs can cause permanent scarring of the fallopian tubes, resulting in infertility even when the underlying infection is cured. I thought everyone knew that.
BTW, certain anti-prostate-cancer drugs can also render you infertile temporarily, with the caveat that if you take them for too long, it's going to be more or less permanent.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
And yet, any agreement that is going to be approved by the court is not going to be "rubber-stamped" - it has to conform to the rules.
That website said very clearly that those aren't "rules", they're guidelines.
Provinces, including the one I am in, have exercised their right to add additional conditions.
Firstly, this is not what you originally claimed. You claimed that a court will intervene in a civil agreement between parents of a child concerning maintenance. This they will not do; they've more than made it clear in the website you linked to!
Secondly, while a judge can modify an order before the court, it's meaningless if both parties are opposed. Courts have never, in my experience in court and out of court, forced two parties in a civil matter to agree to terms when they already have agreement in a different set of terms that violates no law.
Thirdly, and this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, judges routinely rubberstamp amicable agreements. They can get into serious trouble if they don't (there's a whole lotta laws around this one).
Fourthly, (and this also varies a lot) income from maintenance payments are not taxed - they have already been taxed when the paying parent received it, and as they are not tax-deductible on their way out, they are not tax-attracting on their way in to the receiver parent. When you use part of your income to provide income to an employee, you pay no tax on what you pay the employee (they pay their own taxes). As far as I am aware, this legislation went into effect in Canada on May 1, 1997.
Go before a judge with a child support agreement,
I've done so, and do so routinely.
expect it to be scrutinized. It's public policy here nowadays.
It is scrutinized. Unfortunately the court cannot intervene in a civil matter unless one or both of the parties ask the court to do so. So they scrutinise the document, look me in the eye and ask "Is the plaintiff/respondent fully aware of the implications" and I say "Yes, m'lud". The court can use its discretion to refuse to approve the agreement as a judgement, but luckily in Canada and other places a judgement is not needed for maintenance, only a written agreement.
Judges will automatically suspect that any amount less than the guidelines is being used to dodge taxes in return for getting a smaller payment "under the table."
See above ...
On top of that, things like getting an order to garnish wages, seizing income tax refunds, don't even require a subsequent court hearing - just go to the Percepteur des pensions alimentare with the agreement, and the seizure goes through automatically. No hearing or other proof required. To get it lifted, the person has to go to court and prove the seizure is in error.
Sounds like a real hellhole - seizure of assets without proof of debt. Luckily it isn't true for Canada (Seriously, who have you been talking to? Maybe you should engage a lawyer at some point to get some of your misconceptions corrected?).
They can also suspend your driver's license, passport, and other permits.
The link above says that the evidence and claim of non-payment is from an enforcement agency not the receiving parent. So, no - the woman cannot simply go and get all assets seized automatically with nothing more than a signed agreement and her word.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Google disagrees with you - just type "definition contraceptive" and here's what you get:
If we're going to use google as a definitive sources, then type "examples of contraceptives" and note that none of your examples show up in the first three pages (I got tired of looking after that). If you want to claim that certain "infertility measures" is the same as "contraceptive" then you are going to have to find at least one trustworthy place that agrees with your claim that STD's are contraceptives.
Birth control, also known as contraception and fertility control, are methods or devices used to prevent pregnancy. Planning, provision and use of birth control is called family planning. Birth control methods have been used since ancient times, but effective and safe methods only became available in the 20th century.
That's why coitus interruptus and the rhythm method are both classified as (very poor) contraceptive methods. Same way as anal and oral sex are methods methods to prevent pregnancy.
And yet, you cannot find anyone other than yourself who will call STD's contraceptives.
STDs can cause permanent scarring of the fallopian tubes, resulting in infertility even when the underlying infection is cured. I thought everyone knew that.
We do - unfortunately for your argument, not everything that prevents fertilisation is called a contraceptive.
BTW, certain anti-prostate-cancer drugs can also render you infertile temporarily, with the caveat that if you take them for too long, it's going to be more or less permanent.
I don't doubt their existence, but can you find anyone who refers to them in any way as a contraceptive?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
already had their sensation reduced by half via infant genital cutting.
Which is yet another case of the double standard. Trim a woman, get on the news for genital mutilation, go to jail.
Mutilate a male baby, get paid by insurance for it.
Not, only that but IIRC in the state I live in, the decision is the mother's, not the father's if there is a conflict.
Personally, I think it should be illegal to perform it on anyone less than 18 years of age. My parents religious / whatever hangups should not be affecting my life 40 years later.
Again, I and plenty of others have posted citations of paternity fraud throughout the thread. It takes less than 5 seconds to make the shortest of google queries about the subject. Someone in most European countries and a large majority of states can simply put my name on paper and I am now a father. This recently happened to me, even though I was in another country for the conception (4,000+ miles away), and the lady said she just felt like protecting her child instead of labeling the correct father, who makes much less money than me. My wife of 30+ years did find it interesting to receive the summons, though.
This is the law in California, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. If you wish to find more modern locations than these I'd love to hear your analogies. Somehow, I think you continue to excuse any sort of illegal activity for your social justice activism.
A hearing has to be held, and justification for varying from the schedule has to be given. "Because we want to" is not sufficient. It has to be shown to be in the best interests of the child.
Again, procedures vary from province to province. As I said before, " just go to the Percepteur des pensions alimentare with the agreement, and the seizure goes through automatically." The percepteur is a government agency. Judgements after 1997 are even simpler - the money is paid to the Percepteur, usually but not always by your employer being required to deduct it from your salary. Don't pay (you changed jobs or lost your job), they go after everything. They have the power to seize your belongings, bank account, any other money such as a pension, etc. And the feds are quite happy to cancel your passport at the percepteur's request. And the province will happily yank your drivers and other licenses.
The onus is upon the alleged debtor to go to court to prove either that payment has been made, or the amounts aren't owing (they won't even check to see if the children are now adults in their mid-twenties and the "custodial parent" isn't really their custodial parent - either produce proof that they are independent adults or have them testify). Alternatively, go to court when the kids are no longer children and get a court order ending support. The percepteur cannot modify or terminate the judgment themselves. Only a judge can.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
It doesn't have to be called a form of contraception to be used as one, just like a screwdriver doesn't have to be called a chisel to be used as one. Same as plenty of medications have off-label uses.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
How am I in any way excusing this? It's outright fraud, and since it's "supposed" to be yours, why not demand that "your child" be given a DNA test so you can "decide whether or not to apply for custody?" That might shake something loose.
Unfortunately it's also the law here in Canada. The only thing to do is to get a court order demanding a test. You have enough to "show cause" for one.
You can also tip off the real father that the kid is his - maybe he would like some visiting rights?
Strange - I post an article about an upcoming advance in birth control for men, and everyone focuses on "how unfair it is that the woman has total control," when in fact she has not got total control. Condoms work. Oral sex works. Anal sex works. Vasectomies work. Finding a partner who has had an IUD inserted, or a tubal ligation or a hysterectomy works. Guys have options - this just adds two more to the mix at some future date.
This is NOT about paternity fraud. That's going to happen even if the guy's on the pill. "Did you take it every day?" "Guess it didn't work?" "Are you sure you even took it instead of wanting to spread your demon seed?" "Maybe there was a drug interaction - what other meds are you on? Other drugs?"
Same as now happens to women who get pregnant despite being on the pill.
Most important of all - the kid has the right to know the truth, especially since it could be important in a medical emergency.
Somehow, I think you continue to excuse any sort of illegal activity for your social justice activism
Show me one place in this thread where I have excused or encouraged any sort of illegal activity. And accusing me of being a SJW, when I have been quite vocal here in denouncing the bogus claims of Brianna Wu in particular? Doesn't stick. And I've also said several times that making "Depression Quest" does not qualify Zoe Quinn as a game developer. It's just a template-driven flip book.
BTW, the domain for depression quest (depressionquest.com) is up for grabs, if you or someone else you know wants it for the lulz.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
1. Again, you accuse a victim for not wading instantly through mounds of paternity law when the fraud is exacted against them (me). Further evidence the you would rather ruin someone's professional, personal, and legal standing than admit that women are enabled to commit fraud against men by most current paternity laws around the world. Counts as one instance of you advocating illegal activity from my POV. I particularly liked the part where you automatically assumed I would have sex with this person whatsoever and then dictate to me how I must conduct myself intimately.
2. Show me a single /. thread that survives its plan once the comments start?
3. I haven't a clue what a SJW is, or the depression comments concern. Maybe you could advocate 'people' instead of LGBTt's because the other 95% + of people tire of your bullshit.
P.S. As I and others have pointed out, the birth control for men means absolutely nothing if the woman simply puts his name on a piece of paper and makes him legal responsible for a child no matter what; even without his knowledge or consent.
I never accused anyone of "not wading instantly through mounds of paternity law when the fraud is against them (you)". The proper action if you feel defrauded is to get a lawyer and head to court, or at least try to get the mother to admit she lied and change the birth certificate..
There is NOTHING that I have posted that indicates that I in any way condone fraud against someone, no matter who they are. Again, show me one place. And it should be obvious, when I focus on the child and their right to know who their real father is (and that overrides any embarrassment or trouble or other conflict others may feel) that I'm advocating for "people's rights" - in this case, a child who cannot do so themselves.
You don't seem to understand that just because women are able to name anyone as the father doesn't mean that naming the wrong person is legal. It's, as you pointed out, fraud. It's also creating a forged document. That's why you can go to court and get it reversed - because it's NOT legal.
Further evidence the you would rather ruin someone's professional, personal, and legal standing than admit that women are enabled to commit fraud against men by most current paternity laws around the world. Counts as one instance of you advocating illegal activity from my POV.
Where have I said that women should be allowed to lie about who the father is? Show me ONE place where I advocate that. If you choose not to avail yourself of the means to rectify the situation, that doesn't give you ANY right to claim that I'm advocating illegal activity. To the contrary, YOU are, by your inaction, condoning that same illegal activity.
And don't start whining about how I'm engaging in "blaming the victim" here. You ARE at fault for not taking the steps necessary to rectify this matter. Just as the mother is at fault for lying about who the real father is. There is also the problem that, in some jurisdictions, if you don't challenge it within a certain delay after you become aware of it, then you cannot go to court - you've been assumed to have accepted the situation.
Instead of whining, go see a lawyer. Or be prepared to accept that this child is in the eyes of the law yours. Instead of whining on a blog, take action. Instead of casting unwarranted aspersions at others, fix the problem that is the source of your concern.
If you're conflicted about it, or not ready to take such a step yet but it's still causing you grief, why not see a therapist to help you find out why you can't seem to do what is obvious to pretty much everyone. It can't hurt and it might help. :-)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
And as I pointed out, men have legal recourse, because it's NOT legal to knowingly put down the wrong name. So men can avoid the legal responsibility by going to court. Kind of puts a hole in your claim that this sort of fraud "makes him legal (sic) responsible for a child no matter what."
But the longer the delay in taking action once you find out, the harder it is to challenge it, since any court will ask why you didn't take action within a reasonable delay of finding out. An unreasonable delay tends to indicate that you originally were in agreement. Many states only allow 1 year to contest.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Lazy non-response is lazy.
Morning after pill is "no matter what"?
Abortion is "no matter what"?
Giving the child up for adoption - with or without his consent - is "no matter what"?
So you're going to barrel on with that double standard, regardless? How precious.
You're completely ignoring the following 216 months with your tunnel vision on the first 9. Why is that? Do you think that responsibility for a child stops with birth?