I did not say that the woman was getting manicures. I said that the woman was abusing the money, but doing everything possible to be aboveboard.
Eg, buying adidas, instead of ozark trail, or some similarly generic store brand. Or, buying tommy hilfiger jeans instead of rustler, and putting those purchases down as "shoes and jeans."
Addidas cost over 70$. Ozark trail rarely costs over 40. Tommy hilfiger jeans can easily cost over 100$. Each. Rustler rarely costs more than 30$.
I was addressing the situation presented whe the man has custody, and buys the more fiscally responsible option, vs the situation where the woman uses the money unwisely on purpose, distorts her purchases on the accounting, and does this to "stick it" to the man.
Other things I have heard of, include the woman claiming self employment and paying herself less than minimum wage on her tax reports, to get a larger share of child support money, and other crookd dealings.
Do men do this as well, of course. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. However, the institutional convention of "woman wins by default" leads to a considerable amount of disharmony, and stress that could be mitigated with more sensible awards of custody.
If the men are not using protection, they deserve what they get, just like the women.
In deference to getting a vasectomy, there *can* be lasting side effects, even though it is a simple and often reversible proceedure.
(Autoimmune reactions and permanent sterility being noteworthy.)
The aversion to surgically induced impotence is mostly cultural. If they can't get over their egos enough to do their part in the use of contraception, they deserve the trouble it causes. I won't defend it.
However, given the current lack of male options, placing the majority of the responsibility to use contraception on the woman is only sensible. A man can't force a woman to get an IUD, for instance. That is her responsibility.
I was referring more toward the phenomenon where the mother uses the support money in less than frugal manners.
For instance, buying Jr. Addidas, instead of more sensibly priced shoes. She lists it on the accounting as "shoes."
She does this, because SHE wants to punish. The courts side with her by default. Without receipts showing the inappropriate use of the support money, the man has no case.
Whereas the man, with custody of the child, would indeed buy the child shoes when the child needs them, but would not buy him addidas, because *gasp*, he can't afford them.
As such, having custody of the child, and assuming support that way, is the far superior option in pretty much all cases. It is often FAR cheaper for the man to support the child cia custody, than through court mandated payments, and with significantly less stress.
My being anomalous does not justify your continued and shameless purpetuation of a system that presums my guilt until I prove my innocense; a system which makes that all but impossible.
If I have a jaded view of women, it is because I am not infatuated with them, and find their antics disgusting from the beginning.
I am asexual. I find sex to be a disgusting concept. I do not desire nor require it. I do not desire nor require female companionship. I do not require, nor desire male companionship.
Due to this complete divorce from the hormonal charade, I am often treated quite rudely by women, since I *DO NOT* fall victim to the sexual games they try to play on my gender. I tell them bluntly that I find their behavior disgusting. If they want something from me, they can ASK. I am completly immune to sexual manipulation. I register attempts at such manipulation negatively. Women in western cultures employ sexual manipulation to get ahead in life, and I do not play that game. The resulting MUTUAL resentment has left me bitter and jaded toward the female gender. Women that do not try to bait and tease with their sexuality I have absolutely no problems with.
I have absolutely no sympathy for people of either gender who fuck up their lives by being ruled by their hormones. If you are a woman, and make a bullshit dumb-assedly stupid thing like agree to consensual sex, and you get pregnant, enjoy your fucking stretchmarks.
Likewise, if you are a man, and do this, and she gets preggers-- Congratulations. You're a fucking dad. Deal with it.
What I absolutely hate, though, is when this happens, the man *DOES* want the child, is denied custody because the baby is "adjusted to life with mommy", and gets shafted by a woman with entitlement issues.
Yes. It happens. It happens a lot. I call your gender out on it. No amount of "pregnancy is bad for my pussy!" Justifies being a cunt. You know what else has real health effects that "shitty american healthcare" doesn't cover? DEPRESSION.
THE KIND CAUSED BY HOPELESSNESS AND STRESS.
Because that is what men with child support payments endure. Stress. Endless, unrelenting, uncaring, unescapable stress.
Stress kills people. So does complication from pregnancy. But you know what? Pregnancy lasts 9 months. Dealing with baby-momma lasts for life. A lot of people I know would have EAGERLY accepted that fetus WITHOUT A UTERUS, and risked serious health problems as a result, rather than deal with the stress for 18 years.
Your callousness about the stress issue is one of the reasons I am jaded against your gender.
I am jaded against people in general.
Sont worry your pretty little head off. I have no desire whatsoever for children.
Typically, when these 2 people have such casual sex, they make heavy use of contraception. Until the male version of the pill gets approved and on the market, either having their vas defrans ligated and or cauterized, or putting a condom on is about all the man can do concerning contraception.
Women have *way* more options, including drugs to prevent implantation (morning after pill) and drugs to abort at home (plan B) if caught early enough.
Given all the options available, short of catching a woman unprepaired for sex (such as by rape) there is very little compelling statistics to show that a pregnancy resulting from casual sex is unwanted.
(A condom is about 70% effective, at the worst. The pill is about 90% effective after that. Using a contraceptive lubricant cuts that down even further. At the bottom of the stack, the chances of unwanted conception approaches 0. Then, in the unlikely event that it DOES happen, there are still options.)
When the male contraceptive pill hits the market, No contest, Men should use it. Period.
Actually, I live in about the most backward state you can live in, where you can be charged with statutory rape for letting a woman sleep in your house, in a different room, behind a locked door. If she stays more than 3 days, it can be legally presumed that you fucked her. For real.
It is also the land ID in textbooks, and crazy abortionist killers.
I would gladly concede this, if the fallacy that women make superior parents was not routinely applied in such paternity and custody proceedings.
Supporting a child yourself is easier, when *YOU* decide what is being purchased, and *NOT* a vindictive 3rd party with entitlement issues.
I believe that child support is being improperly utilied to cause financial and emotional harm. I believe that if the man desires the child, he should have equal opportunity to be awarded custody. This is not conserved in practice, thus in practice, child support is usually punitive.
I am an asexual man. I take great offense at the very notion that I am presumed to be a predatory stalker of pussy. I have to go through GREAT lengths to dispell this belief in people of both genders. Its quite simple, I DO NOT FIND OTHER PEOPLE ATTRACTIVE. I do not want your pussy. I don't care if you are jessica alba, a playboy bunny, a crazed crackwhore vaccuming up lines, or a fucking nun. I do not want your pussy. I do not want some other man's dick either. I have one of my own already, than you.
I DO NOT want your double standard enforced on me because of YOUR convenience.
Then explain why men are very rarely awarded custody, except in cases where the woman is clearly unfit.
The presumption that females are more loving parents has been beaten bloody by recent psychologists and psychological studies. It does not withstand evidence.
When 2 people have consentual sex, under the pretexts that the sexual encounter is entirely just for the sex, just for that night, it is kinda implied that the man wants nothing whatsoever to do with the woman afterward, and vise-versa.
When these same 2 people have sex, and a pregnancy results, the man typically would prefer the woman use something like plan B. If that is not a option for religious reasons (why is she engaging in premarital sex again?), then the man would rather that the child becom a ward of the state; he has no desire to deal with the woman he impregnated: They came together under the auspices that there would be no entanglements.
Should entanglements happen, men tend to presume that women are *not* stupid, and know full well that fucking is how babies happen.
The usual course of events in these cases is thus:
1) people that find each other physically attractive, but not emotionally or mentally attractive agree to have casual sex, under the presumption that the sex has no emotional or spirtual ties, and means nothing except to get each other off.
2) they have sex under those conditions.
3) the woman gets pregnant
4) the woman discovers pregnancy to be costly and debilitating, and sees financial releif. She turns to the legal system to compel the man she had casual sex with to support her.
5) the man is angry that the woman has violated the terms of their sexual conjugation, and is enraged that she is using the court to compel him to pay for her mistakes. He feels that her agreement to the casual sex straight up means she knew this could happen, and that she would accept such a consequence if it happened. That's what consenting to meaningless sex means. It means that he does not want to start a family, and just wants to get his rocks off. If you are a woman, and consent to that kind of agreement, you should accept the consequences.
6) the woman disagrees, and the court sides with her out of deference to the good of the child.
7) woman endures 9 months of pregnancy and physical disfigurement from the ordeal. (Stretch marks, vericose veins, etc.)
8) man endures 18 YEARS of financial uncertainty, and with it, disability to start a family he actually wants to have. Has to deal with a woman he does not love, feels betrayed and victimized by, and ends up developing resentment rather than love for the child.
The real lesson here is DON'T FUCK AROUND. Its that simple. Don't fuck, no babies, no child support, no deadbeats/bitchy women, and no officiousness from the courts.
But, for the people who's gonads could not be sated with a length of rubber or a handy tissue and a copy of hustler, I am confident that the men involved would rather spend 9 months with a surgically transplanted ectopic pregnancy, and then state adoption of the child, than 18 years dealing with betrayal and angst with a woman and child they do not love.
The day they invent a truly useful artificial uterus, is the day feminists everywhere have a conniption fit, and try to ban their use. Because men will cut the women off.
Bodymass is only ONE of the factors that determine vulnerability to alcohol. I get drunk very, very easily. As a consequence, I refuse alcohol at parties. Always.
I am confident in the assertion that many of the people I know who were stupid enough to fuck around and get women pregnant, and now owe child support for 18 years would rather have had the fetus surgically implanted into their abdomens for 9 months, and raise the kids themselves than deal with the child support system clusterfuck, and the entitlement issues of the woman raising their kid.
I was referring to the "technically awake, but not able to remember" type black out. As in, you wake up, and have no memory of the evening, when everyone else at the party says you were a ruacus party animal that would make Bacchus blush.
We are talking lampshades here.
As for the "You consented" line you give, it is impossible for such an intoxicated person to give such consent, because they are not in their right mind, and as such, cannot be aware of the repercussions of their choice.
This is frequently the foundation of "I got drunk at a party and got raped!" concerning teenage girls. they get drunk, they REALLY DO actively incite male party goers to have sex with them (I think taking your top off, jiggling your boobies, removing your panties by yourself, and laying spread eagled on the couch demanding fucky time counts as soliciting sexual intercourse. Seen it happen as a designated driver. Women do crazy shit when drunk at parties), and then the next day file rape charges, because they would never have consented to those activities without being chemically altered in their thought processes. The courts eat it up like candy. "Poor, vulnerable girl, taken advantage of by dirty dirty men at that party."
As for "Men cant have sex while unconscious", that is BS. Men get erections while asleep all the time. Its called morning wood. Woman on top position does not require male thrusting. Granted, alcohol tends to cause male impotence. There are other substances frequently used at parties that can render people unconscious as well, that dont do that. Men can and do get rufie'd.
The "Over" in "Overindulgence" pretty much spells that part out.
While you personally have a stronger resistance to alcohol than say, some other person, it does not mean that alcohol effects you any differently chemically. As such, the thought experiment is not invalidated by your anecdote.
Your proposal on how to behave at parties is directly corollary with the institutionalized double-standard I was referring to. Women can be more carefree in their behaviors, while men must be more proactively guarded, in order to avoid the problem. The addressing of the double standard is the problem; Men dont want to admit that they might not be in complete control (that is culturally unacceptable), and women dont want to admit that they could have been aggressors while drunk. (Dont you know, women are the FAIRER sex! they are delicate little flowers!)
Being straight-up asexual, I see this problem differently, with much less sexual politicizing. I see one type of person being forced to be more guarded and careful, to counter a predatory and/or shamelessly callous but socially protected behavior in another.
Really, BOTH should be guarded, as BOTH are vulnerable to the effects of over-consumption of alcoholic beverages.
The alcohol is only an accessory to the crime(s) committed.
Alcohol removes inhibition, by temporarily suppressing the prefrontal cortex. This loss of inhibition is then what causes the sex. Consent cannot be given, because rational thought cannot happen, due to chemical influence. The use of alcohol is legal, and both parties consumed the alcohol willingly.
I agree for the most part, but the world is not black and white. Here's a little hypothetical thought experiment:
A teenage man (say, 19, so above majority age) goes to a party, which involves alcohol. He gets drunk enough to become sufficiently intoxicated to black out the evening. He wakes up in his bed at home, after being dropped off by friends. 3 months later, a girl who was at the party claims a paternity suit against him for her now 3rd month pregnancy, the test shows positive. he does not remember giving consent, and does not remember the woman at all.
Now, Flipside.
A teenage woman, (Say, 19, so above the age of majority), goes to a party which involves alcohol. She gets drunk enough to be sufficiently intoxicated to black out the evening. She wakes up at home in her bed after being dropped off by friends. She has semen stains in her panties. She does not remember giving consent, and promptly makes use of a female hotline to report her "rape."
These situations are essentially identical, however the female's view holds more gravity than does the male's. Contrary to what many feminists might claim, a non-consentual pregnancy and subsequent child support mandate can ruin a man's life, just as much as the unconsentual pregnancy itself can ruin a woman's. In both cases, informed consent could not be considered a given, because both were heavily intoxicated. This makes both instances fall de-facto under the umbrella of rape.
Both cases have identical themes: A person is encouraged by the party to become intoxicated, and is then taken sexual advantage of while judgment is impaired. That is straight up rape.
Why is it then, that men in this circumstance are more frequently saddled with being the SOURCE of the rape, and denied protections as a victim of rape, while women are more frequently granted the protections of being the victims of rape, while men are saddled with the blame for such rape?
I would say it is because of cultural bias, and double standards; women are percieved as more vulnerable, (when both are equally vulnerable to alcohol and other drugs), and thus requiring the stronger protections. Men are conversely considered to be "stronger", and being raped in this way is even culturally approved of in a disturbingly sick fashion.
I really do believe that it is possible to have a no-fault rape case. Both participants get smashed and fuck like rabbits while out of their minds, and assert they would never have consented to the sex while sober. How does the law react to such a circumstance? Does it punish both victims for their over-indulgences? Who pays child support?
Part of the judicial process of a juror requires you to suspend your own personal knowledge of "case matters", such as things like "If you run FSCK on a mounted volume, you are an idiot!", if pertinent to a case involving lost or destroyed data.
In this case, your knowledge of silicon lithography techniques and practices would have to be suspended, in favor of what the court PRESENTS. Only matters presented as fact in the court can be deliberated by the jury. Naturally, this gets abused heavily by both the prosecutor and the defense.
The intent is that outside influences, like "That makes baby jesus cry!" would be prevented from influencing the impartiality of the jury, and helping to assure the fairness of the trial.
No question about it. The deadliest flu ever could be produced simply by adding a few genes to the influenza virus.
Say, the genes for botuloid neurotoxin. Good luck with antidotal treatment, when every cell in your body is manufacturing it, because you have contracted the deadly weaponized flu.
A very angry grad student, and a couple weeks alone doing secretive "research", and the next thing you know, Pol Pot looks angelic in comparison for his contributions to the world.
Is this really far off in left field? Obviously. It's so deep in tinfoil hat country that it's basically something a tinfoil mummy would say. But that does not negate that it COULD happen.
Unstable additions to plant and animal genomes cause similar things to get appended to bacterial genomes, and through bacterial replication and bacterial vectors, into other infectious forms, like viruses. It is uncontrolled, and in the wild. While the genes transferred are not likely to be for something clearly deleterious like botuloid neurotoxin, remember that many genetic disorders in humans are caused by gene sequence mutations that are exact matches for genes found doing useful things in other organisms.
Moral Absolutism I don't think it means what you think it means.
The problem, is that there is no concensus on moral judgements and values. As such, it is just a war of competing ideologies, with no outstanding basis other than "My all powerful diety said so!" Vs "yeah, well MY all powerful deity said otherwise!"
At least the religious have the sense of mind to ascribe the morality to an outside, and presumably perfect source. So far, you have not. That is why I have been harping on you that there is no concensus, and that no ideal is perfectly conserved, as per the definition in the wikipedia article. (Since not even one is conserved, there is no absolute morality.) The best you will get is a culturally conserved cultural morality. This is often confused as being absolute. It is not.
In our culture, infanticide is absolutly intolerable.
In isolated south american ethnic tribal units? Not so much.
Our culture, is not their culture. Our morals are not their morals. What is right and wrong to us, is not the same as what is right and wrong for them. Attempting to conflate the two is a non sequitor. It does not logically hold.
As such, for an absolute morality to exist, it would have to eliminate all competition. Eg, it has to force its acceptance over other moral codes of conduct, until no other codes of conduct exists.
This is why religions that hold an absolute authority invariably cause long lasting strife and violence. Not doing so casts doubt on the authority of their perfect diety.
This is why putting the musslim and the jew in the same room to argue morality is a bad thing. Wear the vest. Seriously.
Similar arguments can be made from other industries, like say, rare earth oxides.
What is the scientific difference between osmium oxide produced by sweatshop laborers in china, using ecologically devistating prcesses, and osmium oxide produced under far more sensible conditions in say, (random country here) "brazil"? Both are osmium oxide. Barring some freak of isotopic yeilds, both will identify exactly the same in a mass spectrometer. They are both osmium oxide.
The genera public may still have an innate negative bias against the dirty chinese version. Hiding the fact that it is dirty chinese osmium oxide, by claiming "your argument is not scientific, so unimportant!" So that you can continue using the cheap source of the oxide over the more expensive one, becase "the public can't tell the difference anyway" is straight up anticonsumer.
That is exactly what is happening here. The GM crops are undesirable for sociological reasons, just like the chinese osmium is sociologically undesirabl. Same with "conflict diamonds." This argument is like de'biers saying "there is no outstanding difference between a conflict diamond, and a non-conflict diamond that ordinary people would recognize, so there is no reason whatosever to disclose the source of our diamonds, or brand label them as such."
The real imperitive here, is that they want to continue selling conflict diamonds at non-conflict prices, by forbidding the consumer to have knowledge of where the diamonds in their wife's wedding band came from.
The difference, is that we have GM crop companies wanting to call GM corn "Corn", for the same effect. Some people object to GM for religious reasons (playing god)-- others think it is franken food. Others are concerned that the crops were banned in other countries, and don't want to eat them. Forbidding that knowledge so that the GM companies can continue to sell the products as fungible generic produce, despite its exotic nature, is the same exact thing.
In any other industry the practice is universally reviled.
Without universal recognition, "absolute morality" is just another relative worldview seeking to enforce itself on others.
That is why your statement is hyporitical. I pointed out that even something as shocking as infanticide is not universally recognized as a morally debased action; where you quite clearly claimed that it was one of those things which you just never do, ever, (cause it's de evilz, dawg.)
Your (and I emphasize "YOUR") absolute morality is fundementaly different from some other person's absolute morality. Just get a musslim and an arab in the same room and start discssing their absolute morals. Better being a bullet proof vest.
That is the point that moral relativists like myself point out. Your absolute morality is entirely your own, and only applies absolutely to yourself and no-one else.
It may compliment other people's senses of morality quite faithfully even, but since we are talking absolutes, "close" doesn't cut it. If you disagree on even one point in the discussion, your total morality is not conserved.
I was pointing out that given all of humanity as the source, you will find contention on every last moral issue, including something held sacrosanct by western cultures, like protecting babies.
This is why moral absolutism is a myth. It can be empirically shown to be false.
Your internal assertion of correctness, rightness, and absolutism means jack squat where your neighbor is concerned. Simply because you hold something to be true, does not mean that it is.
The usual argument is that spraying corn plants with live BT germs as pest control introduces much more than just the active protien when people eat the corn. (You ingest whole germs.) If eating whole germs des not show any noteworthy reactions, then surely eating just the active protien in the corn would be less harmful even than the sprayed natural corn.
However, this discounts that proteomic is a *very* new discipline, which is cinsistently showing that simply adding a gene can have a wide array of consequences in a host organism, especially when the gene is incorporated in a less than controlled fashion (such as via a retrovirus vehicle.)
Eating the corn is safe. Eating the germ is safe. Eating the corn and the germ together is safe. Eating the corn that harbors genes from the germ might not be safe; there is a growing body of evidence that the location of a gene in the nuclear DNA has very real effects, and can cause dangerous biological processes in the host.
This is why testing these products is essential, and why people need to be given much more information than they are.
If that were the case, it means these companies *know* that the consumer at large does not want their product. Exactly why they have these aversions to the GMO products is inconsequential: the public is innately biased against it, and does not want to consume that product.
So, in order to force the consumers to consume the "cheaper" GMO produce, they have to be deceptive in the packaging and labling.
How is that not a deceptive market practice?
If this were cheap chinese electronics that are functionally identical being sold as genuine items, the FTC and WIPO would be birthing purple cows over it, but because it's just food, and you wouldn't understand the difference anyway, it is perfectly OK to conceal this information to enforce continued profits of a product line?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. And read mine.
I did not say that the woman was getting manicures. I said that the woman was abusing the money, but doing everything possible to be aboveboard.
Eg, buying adidas, instead of ozark trail, or some similarly generic store brand. Or, buying tommy hilfiger jeans instead of rustler, and putting those purchases down as "shoes and jeans."
Addidas cost over 70$. Ozark trail rarely costs over 40. Tommy hilfiger jeans can easily cost over 100$. Each. Rustler rarely costs more than 30$.
I was addressing the situation presented whe the man has custody, and buys the more fiscally responsible option, vs the situation where the woman uses the money unwisely on purpose, distorts her purchases on the accounting, and does this to "stick it" to the man.
Other things I have heard of, include the woman claiming self employment and paying herself less than minimum wage on her tax reports, to get a larger share of child support money, and other crookd dealings.
Do men do this as well, of course. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. However, the institutional convention of "woman wins by default" leads to a considerable amount of disharmony, and stress that could be mitigated with more sensible awards of custody.
If the men are not using protection, they deserve what they get, just like the women.
In deference to getting a vasectomy, there *can* be lasting side effects, even though it is a simple and often reversible proceedure.
(Autoimmune reactions and permanent sterility being noteworthy.)
The aversion to surgically induced impotence is mostly cultural. If they can't get over their egos enough to do their part in the use of contraception, they deserve the trouble it causes. I won't defend it.
However, given the current lack of male options, placing the majority of the responsibility to use contraception on the woman is only sensible. A man can't force a woman to get an IUD, for instance. That is her responsibility.
I was referring more toward the phenomenon where the mother uses the support money in less than frugal manners.
For instance, buying Jr. Addidas, instead of more sensibly priced shoes. She lists it on the accounting as "shoes."
She does this, because SHE wants to punish. The courts side with her by default. Without receipts showing the inappropriate use of the support money, the man has no case.
Whereas the man, with custody of the child, would indeed buy the child shoes when the child needs them, but would not buy him addidas, because *gasp*, he can't afford them.
As such, having custody of the child, and assuming support that way, is the far superior option in pretty much all cases. It is often FAR cheaper for the man to support the child cia custody, than through court mandated payments, and with significantly less stress.
My being anomalous does not justify your continued and shameless purpetuation of a system that presums my guilt until I prove my innocense; a system which makes that all but impossible.
Thank you EVER so much.
If I have a jaded view of women, it is because I am not infatuated with them, and find their antics disgusting from the beginning.
I am asexual. I find sex to be a disgusting concept. I do not desire nor require it. I do not desire nor require female companionship. I do not require, nor desire male companionship.
Due to this complete divorce from the hormonal charade, I am often treated quite rudely by women, since I *DO NOT* fall victim to the sexual games they try to play on my gender. I tell them bluntly that I find their behavior disgusting. If they want something from me, they can ASK. I am completly immune to sexual manipulation. I register attempts at such manipulation negatively. Women in western cultures employ sexual manipulation to get ahead in life, and I do not play that game. The resulting MUTUAL resentment has left me bitter and jaded toward the female gender. Women that do not try to bait and tease with their sexuality I have absolutely no problems with.
I have absolutely no sympathy for people of either gender who fuck up their lives by being ruled by their hormones. If you are a woman, and make a bullshit dumb-assedly stupid thing like agree to consensual sex, and you get pregnant, enjoy your fucking stretchmarks.
Likewise, if you are a man, and do this, and she gets preggers-- Congratulations. You're a fucking dad. Deal with it.
What I absolutely hate, though, is when this happens, the man *DOES* want the child, is denied custody because the baby is "adjusted to life with mommy", and gets shafted by a woman with entitlement issues.
Yes. It happens. It happens a lot. I call your gender out on it. No amount of "pregnancy is bad for my pussy!" Justifies being a cunt. You know what else has real health effects that "shitty american healthcare" doesn't cover? DEPRESSION.
THE KIND CAUSED BY HOPELESSNESS AND STRESS.
Because that is what men with child support payments endure. Stress. Endless, unrelenting, uncaring, unescapable stress.
Stress kills people. So does complication from pregnancy. But you know what? Pregnancy lasts 9 months. Dealing with baby-momma lasts for life. A lot of people I know would have EAGERLY accepted that fetus WITHOUT A UTERUS, and risked serious health problems as a result, rather than deal with the stress for 18 years.
Your callousness about the stress issue is one of the reasons I am jaded against your gender.
I am jaded against people in general.
Sont worry your pretty little head off. I have no desire whatsoever for children.
Typically, when these 2 people have such casual sex, they make heavy use of contraception. Until the male version of the pill gets approved and on the market, either having their vas defrans ligated and or cauterized, or putting a condom on is about all the man can do concerning contraception.
Women have *way* more options, including drugs to prevent implantation (morning after pill) and drugs to abort at home (plan B) if caught early enough.
Given all the options available, short of catching a woman unprepaired for sex (such as by rape) there is very little compelling statistics to show that a pregnancy resulting from casual sex is unwanted.
(A condom is about 70% effective, at the worst. The pill is about 90% effective after that. Using a contraceptive lubricant cuts that down even further. At the bottom of the stack, the chances of unwanted conception approaches 0. Then, in the unlikely event that it DOES happen, there are still options.)
When the male contraceptive pill hits the market, No contest, Men should use it. Period.
Actually, I live in about the most backward state you can live in, where you can be charged with statutory rape for letting a woman sleep in your house, in a different room, behind a locked door. If she stays more than 3 days, it can be legally presumed that you fucked her. For real.
It is also the land ID in textbooks, and crazy abortionist killers.
AKA, the state of Kansas.
I would gladly concede this, if the fallacy that women make superior parents was not routinely applied in such paternity and custody proceedings.
Supporting a child yourself is easier, when *YOU* decide what is being purchased, and *NOT* a vindictive 3rd party with entitlement issues.
I believe that child support is being improperly utilied to cause financial and emotional harm. I believe that if the man desires the child, he should have equal opportunity to be awarded custody. This is not conserved in practice, thus in practice, child support is usually punitive.
I do not believe the double standard is fair.
I am an asexual man. I take great offense at the very notion that I am presumed to be a predatory stalker of pussy. I have to go through GREAT lengths to dispell this belief in people of both genders. Its quite simple, I DO NOT FIND OTHER PEOPLE ATTRACTIVE. I do not want your pussy. I don't care if you are jessica alba, a playboy bunny, a crazed crackwhore vaccuming up lines, or a fucking nun. I do not want your pussy. I do not want some other man's dick either. I have one of my own already, than you.
I DO NOT want your double standard enforced on me because of YOUR convenience.
Double standards NEVER WORK.
Then explain why men are very rarely awarded custody, except in cases where the woman is clearly unfit.
The presumption that females are more loving parents has been beaten bloody by recent psychologists and psychological studies. It does not withstand evidence.
When 2 people have consentual sex, under the pretexts that the sexual encounter is entirely just for the sex, just for that night, it is kinda implied that the man wants nothing whatsoever to do with the woman afterward, and vise-versa.
When these same 2 people have sex, and a pregnancy results, the man typically would prefer the woman use something like plan B. If that is not a option for religious reasons (why is she engaging in premarital sex again?), then the man would rather that the child becom a ward of the state; he has no desire to deal with the woman he impregnated: They came together under the auspices that there would be no entanglements.
Should entanglements happen, men tend to presume that women are *not* stupid, and know full well that fucking is how babies happen.
The usual course of events in these cases is thus:
1) people that find each other physically attractive, but not emotionally or mentally attractive agree to have casual sex, under the presumption that the sex has no emotional or spirtual ties, and means nothing except to get each other off.
2) they have sex under those conditions.
3) the woman gets pregnant
4) the woman discovers pregnancy to be costly and debilitating, and sees financial releif. She turns to the legal system to compel the man she had casual sex with to support her.
5) the man is angry that the woman has violated the terms of their sexual conjugation, and is enraged that she is using the court to compel him to pay for her mistakes. He feels that her agreement to the casual sex straight up means she knew this could happen, and that she would accept such a consequence if it happened. That's what consenting to meaningless sex means. It means that he does not want to start a family, and just wants to get his rocks off. If you are a woman, and consent to that kind of agreement, you should accept the consequences.
6) the woman disagrees, and the court sides with her out of deference to the good of the child.
7) woman endures 9 months of pregnancy and physical disfigurement from the ordeal. (Stretch marks, vericose veins, etc.)
8) man endures 18 YEARS of financial uncertainty, and with it, disability to start a family he actually wants to have. Has to deal with a woman he does not love, feels betrayed and victimized by, and ends up developing resentment rather than love for the child.
The real lesson here is DON'T FUCK AROUND. Its that simple. Don't fuck, no babies, no child support, no deadbeats/bitchy women, and no officiousness from the courts.
But, for the people who's gonads could not be sated with a length of rubber or a handy tissue and a copy of hustler, I am confident that the men involved would rather spend 9 months with a surgically transplanted ectopic pregnancy, and then state adoption of the child, than 18 years dealing with betrayal and angst with a woman and child they do not love.
The day they invent a truly useful artificial uterus, is the day feminists everywhere have a conniption fit, and try to ban their use. Because men will cut the women off.
For real.
I am male.
I weigh 200lbs.
1 american wine cooler will get me buzzed.
Bodymass is only ONE of the factors that determine vulnerability to alcohol. I get drunk very, very easily. As a consequence, I refuse alcohol at parties. Always.
I am confident in the assertion that many of the people I know who were stupid enough to fuck around and get women pregnant, and now owe child support for 18 years would rather have had the fetus surgically implanted into their abdomens for 9 months, and raise the kids themselves than deal with the child support system clusterfuck, and the entitlement issues of the woman raising their kid.
So, fail.
ED is usually age related and considered most prevalent in persons over the age of 25,
Hypothetical 19yr old boy is too young to have a statistically high chance of having ED.
I was referring to the "technically awake, but not able to remember" type black out. As in, you wake up, and have no memory of the evening, when everyone else at the party says you were a ruacus party animal that would make Bacchus blush.
We are talking lampshades here.
As for the "You consented" line you give, it is impossible for such an intoxicated person to give such consent, because they are not in their right mind, and as such, cannot be aware of the repercussions of their choice.
This is frequently the foundation of "I got drunk at a party and got raped!" concerning teenage girls. they get drunk, they REALLY DO actively incite male party goers to have sex with them (I think taking your top off, jiggling your boobies, removing your panties by yourself, and laying spread eagled on the couch demanding fucky time counts as soliciting sexual intercourse. Seen it happen as a designated driver. Women do crazy shit when drunk at parties), and then the next day file rape charges, because they would never have consented to those activities without being chemically altered in their thought processes. The courts eat it up like candy. "Poor, vulnerable girl, taken advantage of by dirty dirty men at that party."
As for "Men cant have sex while unconscious", that is BS. Men get erections while asleep all the time. Its called morning wood. Woman on top position does not require male thrusting. Granted, alcohol tends to cause male impotence. There are other substances frequently used at parties that can render people unconscious as well, that dont do that. Men can and do get rufie'd.
The "Over" in "Overindulgence" pretty much spells that part out.
While you personally have a stronger resistance to alcohol than say, some other person, it does not mean that alcohol effects you any differently chemically. As such, the thought experiment is not invalidated by your anecdote.
Your proposal on how to behave at parties is directly corollary with the institutionalized double-standard I was referring to. Women can be more carefree in their behaviors, while men must be more proactively guarded, in order to avoid the problem. The addressing of the double standard is the problem; Men dont want to admit that they might not be in complete control (that is culturally unacceptable), and women dont want to admit that they could have been aggressors while drunk. (Dont you know, women are the FAIRER sex! they are delicate little flowers!)
Being straight-up asexual, I see this problem differently, with much less sexual politicizing. I see one type of person being forced to be more guarded and careful, to counter a predatory and/or shamelessly callous but socially protected behavior in another.
Really, BOTH should be guarded, as BOTH are vulnerable to the effects of over-consumption of alcoholic beverages.
The alcohol is only an accessory to the crime(s) committed.
Alcohol removes inhibition, by temporarily suppressing the prefrontal cortex. This loss of inhibition is then what causes the sex. Consent cannot be given, because rational thought cannot happen, due to chemical influence. The use of alcohol is legal, and both parties consumed the alcohol willingly.
What they did not consent to, was the sex.
I agree for the most part, but the world is not black and white. Here's a little hypothetical thought experiment:
A teenage man (say, 19, so above majority age) goes to a party, which involves alcohol. He gets drunk enough to become sufficiently intoxicated to black out the evening. He wakes up in his bed at home, after being dropped off by friends. 3 months later, a girl who was at the party claims a paternity suit against him for her now 3rd month pregnancy, the test shows positive. he does not remember giving consent, and does not remember the woman at all.
Now, Flipside.
A teenage woman, (Say, 19, so above the age of majority), goes to a party which involves alcohol. She gets drunk enough to be sufficiently intoxicated to black out the evening. She wakes up at home in her bed after being dropped off by friends. She has semen stains in her panties. She does not remember giving consent, and promptly makes use of a female hotline to report her "rape."
These situations are essentially identical, however the female's view holds more gravity than does the male's. Contrary to what many feminists might claim, a non-consentual pregnancy and subsequent child support mandate can ruin a man's life, just as much as the unconsentual pregnancy itself can ruin a woman's. In both cases, informed consent could not be considered a given, because both were heavily intoxicated. This makes both instances fall de-facto under the umbrella of rape.
Both cases have identical themes: A person is encouraged by the party to become intoxicated, and is then taken sexual advantage of while judgment is impaired. That is straight up rape.
Why is it then, that men in this circumstance are more frequently saddled with being the SOURCE of the rape, and denied protections as a victim of rape, while women are more frequently granted the protections of being the victims of rape, while men are saddled with the blame for such rape?
I would say it is because of cultural bias, and double standards; women are percieved as more vulnerable, (when both are equally vulnerable to alcohol and other drugs), and thus requiring the stronger protections. Men are conversely considered to be "stronger", and being raped in this way is even culturally approved of in a disturbingly sick fashion.
I really do believe that it is possible to have a no-fault rape case. Both participants get smashed and fuck like rabbits while out of their minds, and assert they would never have consented to the sex while sober. How does the law react to such a circumstance? Does it punish both victims for their over-indulgences? Who pays child support?
See the problem?
Part of the judicial process of a juror requires you to suspend your own personal knowledge of "case matters", such as things like "If you run FSCK on a mounted volume, you are an idiot!", if pertinent to a case involving lost or destroyed data.
In this case, your knowledge of silicon lithography techniques and practices would have to be suspended, in favor of what the court PRESENTS. Only matters presented as fact in the court can be deliberated by the jury. Naturally, this gets abused heavily by both the prosecutor and the defense.
The intent is that outside influences, like "That makes baby jesus cry!" would be prevented from influencing the impartiality of the jury, and helping to assure the fairness of the trial.
No question about it. The deadliest flu ever could be produced simply by adding a few genes to the influenza virus.
Say, the genes for botuloid neurotoxin. Good luck with antidotal treatment, when every cell in your body is manufacturing it, because you have contracted the deadly weaponized flu.
A very angry grad student, and a couple weeks alone doing secretive "research", and the next thing you know, Pol Pot looks angelic in comparison for his contributions to the world.
Is this really far off in left field? Obviously. It's so deep in tinfoil hat country that it's basically something a tinfoil mummy would say. But that does not negate that it COULD happen.
Unstable additions to plant and animal genomes cause similar things to get appended to bacterial genomes, and through bacterial replication and bacterial vectors, into other infectious forms, like viruses. It is uncontrolled, and in the wild. While the genes transferred are not likely to be for something clearly deleterious like botuloid neurotoxin, remember that many genetic disorders in humans are caused by gene sequence mutations that are exact matches for genes found doing useful things in other organisms.
Proteomics is a very very new science.
Moral Absolutism I don't think it means what you think it means.
The problem, is that there is no concensus on moral judgements and values. As such, it is just a war of competing ideologies, with no outstanding basis other than "My all powerful diety said so!" Vs "yeah, well MY all powerful deity said otherwise!"
At least the religious have the sense of mind to ascribe the morality to an outside, and presumably perfect source. So far, you have not. That is why I have been harping on you that there is no concensus, and that no ideal is perfectly conserved, as per the definition in the wikipedia article. (Since not even one is conserved, there is no absolute morality.) The best you will get is a culturally conserved cultural morality. This is often confused as being absolute. It is not.
In our culture, infanticide is absolutly intolerable.
In isolated south american ethnic tribal units? Not so much.
Our culture, is not their culture. Our morals are not their morals. What is right and wrong to us, is not the same as what is right and wrong for them. Attempting to conflate the two is a non sequitor. It does not logically hold.
As such, for an absolute morality to exist, it would have to eliminate all competition. Eg, it has to force its acceptance over other moral codes of conduct, until no other codes of conduct exists.
This is why religions that hold an absolute authority invariably cause long lasting strife and violence. Not doing so casts doubt on the authority of their perfect diety.
This is why putting the musslim and the jew in the same room to argue morality is a bad thing. Wear the vest. Seriously.
Similar arguments can be made from other industries, like say, rare earth oxides.
What is the scientific difference between osmium oxide produced by sweatshop laborers in china, using ecologically devistating prcesses, and osmium oxide produced under far more sensible conditions in say, (random country here) "brazil"? Both are osmium oxide. Barring some freak of isotopic yeilds, both will identify exactly the same in a mass spectrometer. They are both osmium oxide.
The genera public may still have an innate negative bias against the dirty chinese version. Hiding the fact that it is dirty chinese osmium oxide, by claiming "your argument is not scientific, so unimportant!" So that you can continue using the cheap source of the oxide over the more expensive one, becase "the public can't tell the difference anyway" is straight up anticonsumer.
That is exactly what is happening here. The GM crops are undesirable for sociological reasons, just like the chinese osmium is sociologically undesirabl. Same with "conflict diamonds." This argument is like de'biers saying "there is no outstanding difference between a conflict diamond, and a non-conflict diamond that ordinary people would recognize, so there is no reason whatosever to disclose the source of our diamonds, or brand label them as such."
The real imperitive here, is that they want to continue selling conflict diamonds at non-conflict prices, by forbidding the consumer to have knowledge of where the diamonds in their wife's wedding band came from.
The difference, is that we have GM crop companies wanting to call GM corn "Corn", for the same effect. Some people object to GM for religious reasons (playing god)-- others think it is franken food. Others are concerned that the crops were banned in other countries, and don't want to eat them. Forbidding that knowledge so that the GM companies can continue to sell the products as fungible generic produce, despite its exotic nature, is the same exact thing.
In any other industry the practice is universally reviled.
Why is it tolerated in the food industry?
Without universal recognition, "absolute morality" is just another relative worldview seeking to enforce itself on others.
That is why your statement is hyporitical. I pointed out that even something as shocking as infanticide is not universally recognized as a morally debased action; where you quite clearly claimed that it was one of those things which you just never do, ever, (cause it's de evilz, dawg.)
Your (and I emphasize "YOUR") absolute morality is fundementaly different from some other person's absolute morality. Just get a musslim and an arab in the same room and start discssing their absolute morals. Better being a bullet proof vest.
That is the point that moral relativists like myself point out. Your absolute morality is entirely your own, and only applies absolutely to yourself and no-one else.
It may compliment other people's senses of morality quite faithfully even, but since we are talking absolutes, "close" doesn't cut it. If you disagree on even one point in the discussion, your total morality is not conserved.
I was pointing out that given all of humanity as the source, you will find contention on every last moral issue, including something held sacrosanct by western cultures, like protecting babies.
This is why moral absolutism is a myth. It can be empirically shown to be false.
Your internal assertion of correctness, rightness, and absolutism means jack squat where your neighbor is concerned. Simply because you hold something to be true, does not mean that it is.
The usual argument is that spraying corn plants with live BT germs as pest control introduces much more than just the active protien when people eat the corn. (You ingest whole germs.) If eating whole germs des not show any noteworthy reactions, then surely eating just the active protien in the corn would be less harmful even than the sprayed natural corn.
However, this discounts that proteomic is a *very* new discipline, which is cinsistently showing that simply adding a gene can have a wide array of consequences in a host organism, especially when the gene is incorporated in a less than controlled fashion (such as via a retrovirus vehicle.)
Eating the corn is safe. Eating the germ is safe. Eating the corn and the germ together is safe. Eating the corn that harbors genes from the germ might not be safe; there is a growing body of evidence that the location of a gene in the nuclear DNA has very real effects, and can cause dangerous biological processes in the host.
This is why testing these products is essential, and why people need to be given much more information than they are.
If that were the case, it means these companies *know* that the consumer at large does not want their product. Exactly why they have these aversions to the GMO products is inconsequential: the public is innately biased against it, and does not want to consume that product.
So, in order to force the consumers to consume the "cheaper" GMO produce, they have to be deceptive in the packaging and labling.
How is that not a deceptive market practice?
If this were cheap chinese electronics that are functionally identical being sold as genuine items, the FTC and WIPO would be birthing purple cows over it, but because it's just food, and you wouldn't understand the difference anyway, it is perfectly OK to conceal this information to enforce continued profits of a product line?