the particular mistakes the AI makes reflect the bias of the society that programmed it
Except that this appears to be just speculation: Imagine if (for whatever reason) black American men in a certain situation (income, neighborhood, etc) have a 10% recidivism rate, while white men in the same situation have a 20% recidivism rate. The AI has to give a single number for both groups (since race is deliberately hidden from it), so it guesses (say) a 15% chance of re-offending. So it over-estimates the chances that a black man will re-offend while underestimating the chances for a white man - without any racial bias whatsoever.
Ironically, giving it race as an input would allow it to make more accurate predictions and appear less biased.
There's a chance I've missed something, but barring that, all this demonstrates is that people don't understand statistics and have a strong urge to explain everything as racism.
You might get a better response if you linked to the study itself..
It's number 7 in the table. Also note that he's counting both 'agree' and 'agree with provisos' from the study as 'agree'.
You can dismiss literally any movement, no matter how sensible
True.
, with that.
False. You see how cutting off parts of a sentence can change the meaning into a straw-man?
To make it clear I'm not dismissing any movement, I'm explaining how unusually strong skepticism of one movement is directly caused by the behavior of the people in that movement.
Anything large enough to be a movement is large enough to attract at least one total nutcase.
I agree. You judge it by its mass actions and its major spokespeople - as I did.
So? Some of the most enthusiastic anti-feminists and MGTOWs are also prepared to lie about statistics and completely make shit up.
First, you're doing a 'they do it too' defense, which is still an admission that there's still something 'your side' could be doing better.
Second, you don't have any examples, so I can't be sure of which things you're talking about.
Third, you appear to be holding national organizations, major political figures, and mainstream media publications to the same standards as blog posts. There's a reason I cited things that have been repeatedly quoted during political debates and are treated as fact by people with power. If I was playing a 'gotcha' game I would have cited '#KillAllMen' and tumblr BS.
There is plenty of proof that men get paid more, moron.
Nobody in this thread disputed that.
Proof that there is no pay bias? Hah!
There have been plenty of studies that looked at the wage gap and found that after adjusting for things like hours worked, travel/commute, work environment (indoor/outdoor), and non-financial perks there is only a 2-6% gap left unexplained - roughly the same as the difference between right and left handed people, tall and short men, and other gaps that we know exist but don't care about. And because every single time there was a trade-off to be made men were more likely than women to choose the extra money, it's quite possible that the remaining gap can be explained by some other factor that hasn't been accounted for.
Hey moron... Open your mind to facts instead of mindlessly believing shit?... And it doesn't end at work... Just another reason men die younger. Women get fed up and leave, and they lose their "built-in housekeeper" and can't fend for themselves.... Or did you think that clean underwear magically picked itself off the floor where you left it, jumped into the washing machine, and snuck back into your dresser? You don't see the disparity because you're so used to it everywhere that you've become blind to it.
Someone asked someone else for evidence, and you responded with a series of bland insults, changed the subject, and went on a rant. The only positive thing I can say about this is that I prefer that bigots be open about their prejudice, and for that I thank you.
On the other hand, this rage against half the human race can't be good for you or the men around you. Please get help.
Anti-feminists want you to think that bias is undetectable and that all methods of evaluating it are flawed. They would prefer we didn't even try, it seems.
You don't have to be anti-anything to see that a major part of the issue is that some of the more 'enthusiastic' feminists are quite happy to lie about statistics, even when they're easily disproved: "Full time women make 78% of what full time men make" is true, but they have to add "for the same job!" which makes it false. Twisting the results of possibly useful studies into "1 in 3 men would rape it they could get away with it" and "25% of college women are raped". With a single false story Rolling Stone set back the campus anti-rape movement more than almost anything else possibly could have.
If members of a movement make false statements, and double down on them when called out, they have no-one to blame but themselves when other people start assuming that a request for information is just a prelude to a smear campaign. Unfortunately, then only way to fix that is for the less emotionally-invested members to put pressure on the others to stick to the truth.
One of us may be lost in the above-quoted triple negative... Last I heard such a construct was Pinocchio trying to answer a question while betraying Shreck by neither his words nor his nose...
The use of litotes, even when it's the simplest way of expressing an idea, is now a sign of deception?
The GGP said "I hope they don't lower the coding standards for women, lowering overall coding quality, just so their feelings aren't hurt by the unequal rejection rate".
Except that they really didn't say that:
"As far fewer Female Engineers graduate than other Engineers one way to get the Quantity desired is to lower the Quality. Once you are letting in lesser Quality Engineers and then vetting their checkins at the existing standards its expected that more of the checkins will be rejected. I just hope code review standards are not lowered in order to avoid emotional trauma."
That they're saying that there will be lower quality overall because the average ability of the employees has gone down. Thus a possible interpretation of the 'lower code review standards comment' is that doing it for everyone would help make this issue less prominent - if women still get rejected more, but it only happens once a year rather than once a month, that's far fewer hurt feelings and accusations of sexism.
The GP (me) said "They could raise the standards for just men, increasing the coding quality, and equalizing the gender rejection rate that way."
Right - which makes little sense in response to a post suggesting that standards would change in general, and that code reviews would be gentler in general - you tried to 'flip' a sex-neutral statement into one with the sexes reversed. Since you were replying to things that the GPP didn't say it's your own fault when people don't understand what you wanted/inferred/misread the GPP as saying.
The gender rejection inequality is solved, and code quality over all is better too.
No - having different standards based on sex only trades in an unequal rejection rate (apparent sexism) for unequal standards (explicit, officially-sanctioned sexism [in written company guidelines?]). There's still inequality, and now it's clearly due to deliberate actions and not something outside the company's control.
We often try to make dystopian worlds in science fiction novels into some sort of prediction of the world of the future.
Right, even though most are either fantasies or explorations of human nature in general - in this case what would we do if we wanted everything as safe and stable and shallowly 'happy' as possible, with immense power over the minds of other people?
The Brave New World universe runs completely counter to what is happening now.
Even if we believed that this exact society was possible, we haven't had the prerequisite events.
A robot is a lot easier to build and fix, and elevator attendents who orgasm when they get to the rooof still have to be paid somehow.
But that's not the point, either of the elevator operator, or of the Fordists in general. They want a 'happy' population, and a guy who's thrilled by his job is exactly that. Getting rid of him might give you pointless efficiency, but reduces overall happiness. And sure you have to 'pay' him in food/shelter/etc, but what would you do with it if you didn't spend it on him? Give it to someone else (who already has enough food)? Put him in another job (you already have them all filled)?
It's hard to have a smug sense of superiority over an automatic elevator.
One of the themes of the book was that people already had too much free time - kids were deliberately brainwashed into being more wasteful so that other people had a purpose. And what would efficiency gain you? Money?
I just don't think I would feel aroused while being attacked, even by someone I was attracted to. I think I would probably feel frightened and humiliated.
And that's the point, you would feel frightened, you would feel humiliated, you would not feel aroused - but you can still be made to have an erection. Physical stimulation alone (and no, not just through the back door), without any 'enjoyment' on your part, is enough.
I have been verbally abused by my partner though, and received (comparatively minor, and more veiled) threats. And though I am physically attracted to my partner, I certainly haven't been aroused in these situations.
But I'm presuming that she didn't have her hand down your pants in an effort to get you hard.
That said, I guess the whole rape aspect is perhaps kind of besides the point, and lying about contraception may be a more common way of achieving the same goal.
Yep, but everything else we've pretty much aligned on. So, whether you reply or not, thanks for the conversation.
Since you've been so kind as to offer so much free advice, here's some from me to you:
You've got to do a better job trolling. This is so pathetically obvious that it's depressing to watch you struggle. I understand that life can be very lonely, but you have to find a healthier way to fill the void.:(
I do realize that with saner definitions that almost all the 'gendered' crimes turn out to be surprisingly even-handed or tend to victimize men. But even with that, worrying that a given woman will suddenly 'turn on you' is just as silly as assuming that men or blacks are out to get you.
Basically, I was worried that listing things like that makes it seem like I won't even speak to women lest they call the cops on me.
Partly, I suspect that being attacked would ruin the mood for me, thus rendering the exercise futile.
Except that penises don't work that way. One of the main reason that men who are raped by men don't report is because they're confused or embarrassed because they got an erection or even ejaculated. I mean, if you could just turn it off with willpower, why would premature ejaculation ever be a thing? Why would teenagers have to carry things in front of themselves on occasion?
But okay, just because I find it difficult to imagine doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
And we're better off with people who disagree but have open minds and are willing to listen than with people who all mindlessly agree. I tip my hat to you, sir.
if she's attractive, why does she feel the need to force anyone to have sex with her
You girlfriend wants to get pregnant and you're not ready yet, your ex wants to get back at you, she's mad at your girlfriend, she's mad that you turned her down - sexual assault it isn't usually just about sex, it's sex and power.
bigger and stronger than me enough that she could overpower me
What if you're sick or injured or drunk or high?
Or what if she threatens you? She'll divorce you and say you molested the kids. She can call the cops and say you tried to rape her (and even if the case if thrown out quickly, it can still be devastating). And if you physically resist, that's great - until she get injured (even slightly), then the story will be that you attacked her.
I'm not saying that this is very common, or that men need to get all paranoid. But just because someone's half your size doesn't mean they can't get leverage over you.
In general, I think there's often biased language where there's disagreement. Not that this isn't a problem, but I don't think it's a problem unique to this situation.
Maybe I'm overemphasizing language, but you do have to push people to even realize that there's even a debate to be had. His girlfriend lied to get pregnant and wants to keep it, who cares, he had better upend his life - end of story. Even when there's an awareness of how much that sucks there no 'maybe it doesn't have to be that way' spark of inspiration.
Honestly, I still have some trouble imagining a man having sex with a woman against his will. I generally don't get an erection unless I actually want sex.
First, wanting to have sex isn't the same as consent. Men really do turn down women for sex, even when they're turned on - you don't have to be a slave to your emotions, even if that's what's expected of you.
Second, erections are reflexive - hormones, vibration, or just falling asleep can cause erections. If nothing else, there's pressure on the prostate... I guess what I'm saying is that if boys in an African war zone can get erections when forced to have sex with their own mothers in front of the psychos that just butchered their dad, I'm pretty sure there are less extreme examples.
I can well imagine some women might lie about birth control, but what would you do if the man claims this? Simply accept his word? This isn't (or at least certainly shouldn't be) enough to condemn a man for rape, and I don't think it should be enough to condemn a woman for deceit either.
We shouldn't ever just take someone's word, but if a man gets his girlfriend on tape admitting that she stopped taking birth control without telling him in order to get pregnant and make him marry her, I think that should play some role in how responsibility is meted out.
Legally, I do think men should be required to contribute to supporting their children, unless they have a good reason not to.
And I'm pointing out that in our legal system almost nothing is a 'good enough' reason: In some US states there are men paying child support because the mother chose them at random and the man missed the single mailed summons. The court says they're the father by default, and the first they hear about it is when their wages get garnished.
So even if our lists of what's 'good enough' don't align exactly we should still be able to agree that something should be on it.
The rest was just an attempt to point out our biases - ones that run so deep that our entire vocabulary changes when we stop talking about what she should do and start talking about what he should do. If we can't admit to those, how are we going to come to a fair and just conclusion?
Truly, you should be allowed to take a fruit just because you have a penis.
Maybe 'allowed to take a fruit' is a common phrase where you're from with a non-obvious interpretation, but I've never heard of it. So I'll respond as best I can.
Although this is a rather minor issue, your response is exactly the kind of thing I was trying to point out. Men have a specific set of extra duties in sexual relationships, and just pointing out that it exists upsets people, even though violating those unspoken rules upsets them even more. If a man has sex without 'paying for it' they feel he's acting entitled - even though this is explicitly more egalitarian than most relationships, and expecting the man to pay really is entitlement - for the woman.
And I think that kind of stuff is nonsense - everyone should be allowed to take any freely-given 'fruit' they like. You don't own women, and you don't get to tell them with whom they're allowed to share their sexuality, or under what circumstances.
Admit it would be unfair if the man was raped? Yes, although I doubt that's a very common occurrence.
Jumping out of the bushes and raping him is probably quite rare, though I should mention that that situation is rather rare for women as well. But sex while too drunk or high to consent, or passed out - that might be a bit more common.
But we're getting off the track of the main conversation, this was meant to be a bellwether for our expectations of men. If even the most extreme situations (being too young to legally participate, or even not committing any voluntary act at all) aren't enough to mitigate responsibility, then it's pretty clear that we're not giving men in other situations (lied to about birth control, not told about other possible paternity) a fair hearing.
Or admit it's unfair that women have wombs and men don't? Yes, but only in so far as it's unfair that some people are born smarter, stronger, and more attractive than others. The world isn't fair.
Sure nature is unfair, but that doesn't mean we have to be. Nature sticks women with kids after sex, but lets men walk away, and also give us instincts to try to counteract that imbalance. So we invented induced abortion and birth control, fought to make them legal, and then to make the free. And we also make men pay for dates, pressure them to marry pregnant partners, and now hunt them down after one night stands and even after they're victims of sex crimes. At some point our one-sided re-balancing of the scales will start to make things unfair in the opposite direction, and I think we've passed that.
No, if we're staying legal here, men can only offer to have sex with women. He can't make her have sex, he can't make her stop taking birth control, he can't prevent her from getting an abortion.
women can't make men pregnant
But they can make men pay child support, even if he never wanted kids, even if he never consented to sex. Can you at least admit that that isn't fair?
Actually, you will find out that underage fathers are not required to pay child support unless they want custody. Then they will be paying after they hi their majority.
So you're correcting me, but then say "they will be paying", which is exactly what I said, so... you agree? What? Or are you saying that if they don't want custody they don't pay (which is completely incorrect)?
Same with unconscious. That's called rape, you know.
If he's wasn't penetrated it's not rape in the US, nor in the UK. And paternity is strict liability - even if the woman was convicted of sexual assault that wouldn't be good enough. So it might be technically possible to avoid liability, but I haven't come across a case like that, ever, while on the other hand there have been several cases of men held liable for child support after the woman admitted that he never woke up the entire time, so...
You really should stop trying to justify the punishment of the many by false appeals to the victimization of a few when the actual legal details are different.
Who am I trying to punish?
Same problem when the scofflaw deadbeats bemoan the costs, it is a lie, done only for sympathy, not even true. Your credulous endorsement discredits you.
So all men who gripe about child support are lying, child support is always cheap? And repeating facts from actual court cases discredits me?
It's like the people who bewail how a lesbian couple could have a bunch of kids, but one partner not made to pay child support. Not a one of them was willing to admit the lack of samesex marriage was the issue. No, no, they just wanted the man to be persecuted.
Hunh? If a man donates sperm to ANYBODY (gay or straight, married or single-but-in-a-relationship or single-completely-by-themselves) if the messy legal process to avoid legal parenthood isn't followed he still can be held liable. And I don't think we persecute men, we just don't care that much if they get hurt in our rush to support women and children.
Please change your dosage - I'm not qualified to tell if you need more drugs or less - but you've lost contact with the real world.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll take a compliment like that over a +5 moderation any day. Thank you.
the particular mistakes the AI makes reflect the bias of the society that programmed it
Except that this appears to be just speculation: Imagine if (for whatever reason) black American men in a certain situation (income, neighborhood, etc) have a 10% recidivism rate, while white men in the same situation have a 20% recidivism rate. The AI has to give a single number for both groups (since race is deliberately hidden from it), so it guesses (say) a 15% chance of re-offending. So it over-estimates the chances that a black man will re-offend while underestimating the chances for a white man - without any racial bias whatsoever.
Ironically, giving it race as an input would allow it to make more accurate predictions and appear less biased.
There's a chance I've missed something, but barring that, all this demonstrates is that people don't understand statistics and have a strong urge to explain everything as racism.
You're quite welcome.
Not original poster, but here you go.
Not original poster, but here you go.
Not original poster, but here you go.
You might get a better response if you linked to the study itself..
It's number 7 in the table. Also note that he's counting both 'agree' and 'agree with provisos' from the study as 'agree'.
Thank you for the compliment.
You can dismiss literally any movement, no matter how sensible
True.
, with that.
False. You see how cutting off parts of a sentence can change the meaning into a straw-man?
To make it clear I'm not dismissing any movement, I'm explaining how unusually strong skepticism of one movement is directly caused by the behavior of the people in that movement.
Anything large enough to be a movement is large enough to attract at least one total nutcase.
I agree. You judge it by its mass actions and its major spokespeople - as I did.
So? Some of the most enthusiastic anti-feminists and MGTOWs are also prepared to lie about statistics and completely make shit up.
First, you're doing a 'they do it too' defense, which is still an admission that there's still something 'your side' could be doing better.
Second, you don't have any examples, so I can't be sure of which things you're talking about.
Third, you appear to be holding national organizations, major political figures, and mainstream media publications to the same standards as blog posts. There's a reason I cited things that have been repeatedly quoted during political debates and are treated as fact by people with power. If I was playing a 'gotcha' game I would have cited '#KillAllMen' and tumblr BS.
There is plenty of proof that men get paid more, moron.
Nobody in this thread disputed that.
Proof that there is no pay bias? Hah!
There have been plenty of studies that looked at the wage gap and found that after adjusting for things like hours worked, travel/commute, work environment (indoor/outdoor), and non-financial perks there is only a 2-6% gap left unexplained - roughly the same as the difference between right and left handed people, tall and short men, and other gaps that we know exist but don't care about. And because every single time there was a trade-off to be made men were more likely than women to choose the extra money, it's quite possible that the remaining gap can be explained by some other factor that hasn't been accounted for.
Hey moron ... Open your mind to facts instead of mindlessly believing shit? ... And it doesn't end at work ... Just another reason men die younger. Women get fed up and leave, and they lose their "built-in housekeeper" and can't fend for themselves. ... Or did you think that clean underwear magically picked itself off the floor where you left it, jumped into the washing machine, and snuck back into your dresser? You don't see the disparity because you're so used to it everywhere that you've become blind to it.
Someone asked someone else for evidence, and you responded with a series of bland insults, changed the subject, and went on a rant. The only positive thing I can say about this is that I prefer that bigots be open about their prejudice, and for that I thank you.
On the other hand, this rage against half the human race can't be good for you or the men around you. Please get help.
Anti-feminists want you to think that bias is undetectable and that all methods of evaluating it are flawed. They would prefer we didn't even try, it seems.
You don't have to be anti-anything to see that a major part of the issue is that some of the more 'enthusiastic' feminists are quite happy to lie about statistics, even when they're easily disproved: "Full time women make 78% of what full time men make" is true, but they have to add "for the same job!" which makes it false. Twisting the results of possibly useful studies into "1 in 3 men would rape it they could get away with it" and "25% of college women are raped". With a single false story Rolling Stone set back the campus anti-rape movement more than almost anything else possibly could have.
If members of a movement make false statements, and double down on them when called out, they have no-one to blame but themselves when other people start assuming that a request for information is just a prelude to a smear campaign. Unfortunately, then only way to fix that is for the less emotionally-invested members to put pressure on the others to stick to the truth.
I don't disagree that it should be illegal
One of us may be lost in the above-quoted triple negative... Last I heard such a construct was Pinocchio trying to answer a question while betraying Shreck by neither his words nor his nose...
The use of litotes, even when it's the simplest way of expressing an idea, is now a sign of deception?
The GGP said "I hope they don't lower the coding standards for women, lowering overall coding quality, just so their feelings aren't hurt by the unequal rejection rate".
Except that they really didn't say that:
"As far fewer Female Engineers graduate than other Engineers one way to get the Quantity desired is to lower the Quality. Once you are letting in lesser Quality Engineers and then vetting their checkins at the existing standards its expected that more of the checkins will be rejected. I just hope code review standards are not lowered in order to avoid emotional trauma."
That they're saying that there will be lower quality overall because the average ability of the employees has gone down. Thus a possible interpretation of the 'lower code review standards comment' is that doing it for everyone would help make this issue less prominent - if women still get rejected more, but it only happens once a year rather than once a month, that's far fewer hurt feelings and accusations of sexism.
The GP (me) said "They could raise the standards for just men, increasing the coding quality, and equalizing the gender rejection rate that way."
Right - which makes little sense in response to a post suggesting that standards would change in general, and that code reviews would be gentler in general - you tried to 'flip' a sex-neutral statement into one with the sexes reversed. Since you were replying to things that the GPP didn't say it's your own fault when people don't understand what you wanted/inferred/misread the GPP as saying.
The gender rejection inequality is solved, and code quality over all is better too.
No - having different standards based on sex only trades in an unequal rejection rate (apparent sexism) for unequal standards (explicit, officially-sanctioned sexism [in written company guidelines?]). There's still inequality, and now it's clearly due to deliberate actions and not something outside the company's control.
We often try to make dystopian worlds in science fiction novels into some sort of prediction of the world of the future.
Right, even though most are either fantasies or explorations of human nature in general - in this case what would we do if we wanted everything as safe and stable and shallowly 'happy' as possible, with immense power over the minds of other people?
The Brave New World universe runs completely counter to what is happening now.
Even if we believed that this exact society was possible, we haven't had the prerequisite events.
A robot is a lot easier to build and fix, and elevator attendents who orgasm when they get to the rooof still have to be paid somehow.
But that's not the point, either of the elevator operator, or of the Fordists in general. They want a 'happy' population, and a guy who's thrilled by his job is exactly that. Getting rid of him might give you pointless efficiency, but reduces overall happiness. And sure you have to 'pay' him in food/shelter/etc, but what would you do with it if you didn't spend it on him? Give it to someone else (who already has enough food)? Put him in another job (you already have them all filled)?
It's hard to have a smug sense of superiority over an automatic elevator.
One of the themes of the book was that people already had too much free time - kids were deliberately brainwashed into being more wasteful so that other people had a purpose. And what would efficiency gain you? Money?
I just don't think I would feel aroused while being attacked, even by someone I was attracted to. I think I would probably feel frightened and humiliated.
And that's the point, you would feel frightened, you would feel humiliated, you would not feel aroused - but you can still be made to have an erection. Physical stimulation alone (and no, not just through the back door), without any 'enjoyment' on your part, is enough.
I have been verbally abused by my partner though, and received (comparatively minor, and more veiled) threats. And though I am physically attracted to my partner, I certainly haven't been aroused in these situations.
But I'm presuming that she didn't have her hand down your pants in an effort to get you hard.
That said, I guess the whole rape aspect is perhaps kind of besides the point, and lying about contraception may be a more common way of achieving the same goal.
Yep, but everything else we've pretty much aligned on. So, whether you reply or not, thanks for the conversation.
Since you've been so kind as to offer so much free advice, here's some from me to you:
You've got to do a better job trolling. This is so pathetically obvious that it's depressing to watch you struggle. I understand that life can be very lonely, but you have to find a healthier way to fill the void. :(
Best of luck,
Your only friend,
Yndrd
It is just as common as men raping women.
I do realize that with saner definitions that almost all the 'gendered' crimes turn out to be surprisingly even-handed or tend to victimize men. But even with that, worrying that a given woman will suddenly 'turn on you' is just as silly as assuming that men or blacks are out to get you.
Basically, I was worried that listing things like that makes it seem like I won't even speak to women lest they call the cops on me.
Partly, I suspect that being attacked would ruin the mood for me, thus rendering the exercise futile.
Except that penises don't work that way. One of the main reason that men who are raped by men don't report is because they're confused or embarrassed because they got an erection or even ejaculated. I mean, if you could just turn it off with willpower, why would premature ejaculation ever be a thing? Why would teenagers have to carry things in front of themselves on occasion?
But okay, just because I find it difficult to imagine doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
And we're better off with people who disagree but have open minds and are willing to listen than with people who all mindlessly agree. I tip my hat to you, sir.
if she's attractive, why does she feel the need to force anyone to have sex with her
You girlfriend wants to get pregnant and you're not ready yet, your ex wants to get back at you, she's mad at your girlfriend, she's mad that you turned her down - sexual assault it isn't usually just about sex, it's sex and power.
bigger and stronger than me enough that she could overpower me
What if you're sick or injured or drunk or high?
Or what if she threatens you? She'll divorce you and say you molested the kids. She can call the cops and say you tried to rape her (and even if the case if thrown out quickly, it can still be devastating). And if you physically resist, that's great - until she get injured (even slightly), then the story will be that you attacked her.
I'm not saying that this is very common, or that men need to get all paranoid. But just because someone's half your size doesn't mean they can't get leverage over you.
In general, I think there's often biased language where there's disagreement. Not that this isn't a problem, but I don't think it's a problem unique to this situation.
Maybe I'm overemphasizing language, but you do have to push people to even realize that there's even a debate to be had. His girlfriend lied to get pregnant and wants to keep it, who cares, he had better upend his life - end of story. Even when there's an awareness of how much that sucks there no 'maybe it doesn't have to be that way' spark of inspiration.
Honestly, I still have some trouble imagining a man having sex with a woman against his will. I generally don't get an erection unless I actually want sex.
First, wanting to have sex isn't the same as consent. Men really do turn down women for sex, even when they're turned on - you don't have to be a slave to your emotions, even if that's what's expected of you.
Second, erections are reflexive - hormones, vibration, or just falling asleep can cause erections. If nothing else, there's pressure on the prostate... I guess what I'm saying is that if boys in an African war zone can get erections when forced to have sex with their own mothers in front of the psychos that just butchered their dad, I'm pretty sure there are less extreme examples.
I can well imagine some women might lie about birth control, but what would you do if the man claims this? Simply accept his word? This isn't (or at least certainly shouldn't be) enough to condemn a man for rape, and I don't think it should be enough to condemn a woman for deceit either.
We shouldn't ever just take someone's word, but if a man gets his girlfriend on tape admitting that she stopped taking birth control without telling him in order to get pregnant and make him marry her, I think that should play some role in how responsibility is meted out.
Legally, I do think men should be required to contribute to supporting their children, unless they have a good reason not to.
And I'm pointing out that in our legal system almost nothing is a 'good enough' reason: In some US states there are men paying child support because the mother chose them at random and the man missed the single mailed summons. The court says they're the father by default, and the first they hear about it is when their wages get garnished.
So even if our lists of what's 'good enough' don't align exactly we should still be able to agree that something should be on it.
The rest was just an attempt to point out our biases - ones that run so deep that our entire vocabulary changes when we stop talking about what she should do and start talking about what he should do. If we can't admit to those, how are we going to come to a fair and just conclusion?
Truly, you should be allowed to take a fruit just because you have a penis.
Maybe 'allowed to take a fruit' is a common phrase where you're from with a non-obvious interpretation, but I've never heard of it. So I'll respond as best I can.
Although this is a rather minor issue, your response is exactly the kind of thing I was trying to point out. Men have a specific set of extra duties in sexual relationships, and just pointing out that it exists upsets people, even though violating those unspoken rules upsets them even more. If a man has sex without 'paying for it' they feel he's acting entitled - even though this is explicitly more egalitarian than most relationships, and expecting the man to pay really is entitlement - for the woman.
And I think that kind of stuff is nonsense - everyone should be allowed to take any freely-given 'fruit' they like. You don't own women, and you don't get to tell them with whom they're allowed to share their sexuality, or under what circumstances.
Doesn't matter how you claim it.
Claim what?
you should have stuck with leaving the child in foster care
The convicted statutory rapist still has custody, if you put the child in foster care that's kidnapping.
And even then, people will end up being taxed. Somebody ends up paying for it.
And the most appropriate person to do that is the adult who took criminal advantage of a child.
Sorry, but a lot of things aren't free, just try to have a dog, a house or a car.
"Being the victim of a sex crime isn't free"?
Admit it would be unfair if the man was raped? Yes, although I doubt that's a very common occurrence.
Jumping out of the bushes and raping him is probably quite rare, though I should mention that that situation is rather rare for women as well. But sex while too drunk or high to consent, or passed out - that might be a bit more common.
But we're getting off the track of the main conversation, this was meant to be a bellwether for our expectations of men. If even the most extreme situations (being too young to legally participate, or even not committing any voluntary act at all) aren't enough to mitigate responsibility, then it's pretty clear that we're not giving men in other situations (lied to about birth control, not told about other possible paternity) a fair hearing.
Or admit it's unfair that women have wombs and men don't? Yes, but only in so far as it's unfair that some people are born smarter, stronger, and more attractive than others. The world isn't fair.
Sure nature is unfair, but that doesn't mean we have to be. Nature sticks women with kids after sex, but lets men walk away, and also give us instincts to try to counteract that imbalance. So we invented induced abortion and birth control, fought to make them legal, and then to make the free. And we also make men pay for dates, pressure them to marry pregnant partners, and now hunt them down after one night stands and even after they're victims of sex crimes. At some point our one-sided re-balancing of the scales will start to make things unfair in the opposite direction, and I think we've passed that.
men can make women pregnant
No, if we're staying legal here, men can only offer to have sex with women. He can't make her have sex, he can't make her stop taking birth control, he can't prevent her from getting an abortion.
women can't make men pregnant
But they can make men pay child support, even if he never wanted kids, even if he never consented to sex. Can you at least admit that that isn't fair?
Actually, you will find out that underage fathers are not required to pay child support unless they want custody. Then they will be paying after they hi their majority.
So you're correcting me, but then say "they will be paying", which is exactly what I said, so ... you agree? What? Or are you saying that if they don't want custody they don't pay (which is completely incorrect)?
Same with unconscious. That's called rape, you know.
If he's wasn't penetrated it's not rape in the US, nor in the UK. And paternity is strict liability - even if the woman was convicted of sexual assault that wouldn't be good enough. So it might be technically possible to avoid liability, but I haven't come across a case like that, ever, while on the other hand there have been several cases of men held liable for child support after the woman admitted that he never woke up the entire time, so...
You really should stop trying to justify the punishment of the many by false appeals to the victimization of a few when the actual legal details are different.
Who am I trying to punish?
Same problem when the scofflaw deadbeats bemoan the costs, it is a lie, done only for sympathy, not even true. Your credulous endorsement discredits you.
So all men who gripe about child support are lying, child support is always cheap? And repeating facts from actual court cases discredits me?
It's like the people who bewail how a lesbian couple could have a bunch of kids, but one partner not made to pay child support. Not a one of them was willing to admit the lack of samesex marriage was the issue. No, no, they just wanted the man to be persecuted.
Hunh? If a man donates sperm to ANYBODY (gay or straight, married or single-but-in-a-relationship or single-completely-by-themselves) if the messy legal process to avoid legal parenthood isn't followed he still can be held liable. And I don't think we persecute men, we just don't care that much if they get hurt in our rush to support women and children.
Please change your dosage - I'm not qualified to tell if you need more drugs or less - but you've lost contact with the real world.