It’s a bit cowardly to say this without suggesting anything, so here’s one possible solution that has been suggested before: the man has the option of irreversibly renouncing paternal rights over a foetus after conception. This is his own free choice and after payment of a certain amount to the woman, he is released from any responsibility over them and not considered a deadbeat dad, irresponsible or anything else, just someone making a valid choice. This is in the alternate universe where women are given the same rights over their own body without stigma, but if we’re fighting for that universe, this would be part of it. Ethically this would be considered equivalent to an abortion, as effectively the man is saying that he would have an abortion if he were in a position to do so.
Agreed. In situations involving coercion or partner abuse, the risk of domestic homicide could increase from publicly humiliating the abusive parent.
Suck it up - it’s your responsibility.
Whuh?
You are stating up-front that you totally believe that an individuals preference for homo vs hetero sexual intercourse is a simple matter of decision-making that can and should be influenced by what seems like a more practical idea in the long term?
Or that a “cis” male human can consciously just choose to find a post-menopausal or trans person more sexually stimulating and alluring than a conventionally attractive young woman exhibiting the natural fertility characteristics of the species that their genes have been designed to react to?
Um, these are not decisions that the human psyche has direct control over.
It’s not really a viable option to say that someone should not be attracted to someone sexy, attractive and available - and should instead choose to become stimulated by a husk of their own sex instead, just for economics sake.
What sort of creature are you that thinks that people can just be made to behave that way?
In some circumstances, e.g., combined with a simultaneous stepparent adoption, practical release of liability from child support is already an option in some places.
I don’t think it generally analogizes well to abortion access in practice — now or in the future.
Another remedy would be for taxpayers to support parents with vastly expanded access to reproductive health care and education, infant and early childhood care and education, debt-refinancing, affordable housing, parental leave, support services and, if needed, direct cash compensation of primary parents. The economy would be primed and some significant risk factors for harmful, traumatizing violence would be relieved.
Let’s cut through the crap. Screw someone you might get pregnant, know the risks, pay the consequences. Life’s hard. Alternatives are sophistry. Sex isn’t a need, it’s a want. Go for it, but go for it knowing the risks. Want the power to force an abortion? Tough. Fundies want them banned. I and like minded allies want the decision to be the owner of the pregnant body. Standing in opposition to that by advocating for an impregnating veto (demanding morning after pills/abortions) isn’t a winnable fight. If that’s your jam, best of luck. You’ll still lose.
I think a better option would be to provide a decent social welfare system that makes it as easy as possible for single parents to raise their children on their own. What is important is providing for the child.
It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that you are expected to contribute to the raising of a child you created, even if you didn’t want that child or are estranged from the mother.
Don’t worry. Family courts operate with the good of the child as their primary objective, so this problem clearly won’t arise.
(All snark aside, though, how exactly did they not think of that? Somebody looking for ‘get tough’ points and doesn’t care? Somebody from the dwindling population unaware of who uses this ‘social media’? Somebody raised in a nutrient vat by reptoids and so unaware of the fact that children are masters of motiveless, relentless, cruelty?)
I’m the best sort of creature. What kind are you?
No - I’m not stating that preference is any sort of simple matter. I’m totally stating that some men are bisexual and want to have sex with women. True fact - you could totally look it up and everything.
As far as the rest - guys will generally have sex with any woman. And yes - lot’s of straight guys are attracted to older woman and trans woman - it’s not gay guys responding to those ads in the back of the papers for trans working girls. Now - they may prefer someone with a vagina, so not every trans woman would be their cup of tea.
But - if you state your goal is sex without babies with a a woman - I think you can display some behavioral flexibility.
And a lot of responsibility for your actions and choices.
The term ‘deadbeat dad’ usually comes out when describing people who are delinquent in paying court-ordered child support. Not alimony disputes, and not ‘isn’t nurturing and involved enough during authorized visitation periods’.
There are cogent grounds for arguing that the label is counterproductive in some cases(guess what, Sherlock? If somebody is in prison and earning fifty cents an hour in the license plate mill, all the cooperation in the world isn’t going to allow them to make support payments…); but the label isn’t one your ex can just assign, and the stigma is sufficient, for both parties, that everyone I have observed engage in a classy divorce, with lawyers and stuff, has had no interest in their affairs being dragged into a system thought of as for promiscuous poor people, and prefer to litigate among themselves.
Oh, you dreamer, you!
I think this would, as you’re making the same choice as a woman who has an abortion, i.e. my responsibility ends now with this one act. If a woman makes this decision (i.e. doesn’t bring the pregnancy to term), it will involve an abortion, so I think the finality of this decision should be recognised. Basically, you can’t claim to be against abortion and have a ‘financial abortion’.
As I mentioned, this does not affect my own responsibility at all (both because I’m married and because I’ve had a vasectomy). Essentially though, if the social reasons I gave are considered valid, it makes sense to try to approach ways where this could be addressed for men too, in a way that doesn’t affect the woman’s bodily autonomy.
If anyone suggests those things, I’ll be sure to let them know, but I don’t think anyone on this thread has come close to that. Anything involving a man demanding that a woman does something to her body without consent should be rejected out of hand.
I think that is the better solution overall, but I didn’t suggest it because it doesn’t change the basic situation of parental rights and responsibilities. I’d also add that more equal income and expectations where fathers are given parental leave and expected to contribute more to childcare (along with people having fewer working hours so they actually can spend more time with children) would probably help.
I think a contribution is reasonable, but in a situation where the social reasons I gave outweigh those arguments in the case of women, it isn’t unreasonable for some sort of corresponding right to be given to men.
Yes, I sometimes like to have sex.
And yes, not having babies (that I am eternally beholden to pay for without any choice in the matter) is also a strong factor.
For you to directly extrapolate that it’s logical for me to just have sex with men or trans instead is …
… more than I can comfortably call “behavioral flexibility”
I’m OK if your personal flavour of “behavioral flexibility” allows for switching sexual preferences on a whim that easily, and I’ll also acknowledge that there are other individuals on earth that are similarly fluid, as you claim.
Just please don’t presume that my personal choice not to bump uglies with a post-menopausal ex-male is anything but my own preferences in the between-the-sheets options. Telling me that I should be wanting to be bonking boys is sorta over-reaching what I think your point was.
I might have misunderstood, but that seemed to be the implication of this…
Never said that. And I’m happy you like sex. Bully for you - in this you are unique.
Unfortunately - I think you’re admirably displaying why you’re so lonely.
But again - what kind of creature are you? I think I know - but since you asked me - it seems only fair.
It’s not the same. Abortion is only a partial remedy for the risks of reproductive coercion. What is now called support was historically a legal fight by “dads” of rape victims against “promise-breaking” “seducers,” i.e., rapists. The historical issue was whether the rapist owed the victim’s male legal guardian money for services lost because the victim must now care for a infant.
OTOH, child support is a partial remedy for failing to compensate women for the hard work of parenting. Renouncing parenting rights does not mean there is necessarily someone else to parent the child.
That reality can be seen partly when the state pursues biological parents to reimburse cash support in cases where the child is fostered or the other parent receives TANF benefits.
Sadly, many men spontaneously come up with the idea of renouncing their parental rights to avoid child support. Abuse victims also propose the idea.
It doesn’t generally work. At best, the idea reflects a deep social misunderstanding of pregnancy and parenting.
I hope you all realise that the government of Arizona just announced a program of unaccountable mob justice, and you’re all giving them a pass because you’re too busy Thinking of the Children.
Whether you think deadbeat dads should be executed or given the Congressional Medal of Gamergate, isn’t the point that the law should determine this, and not random Arizoids? Even if you’re one of those people who wants everyone medievally punished for everything forever, “naming and shaming” still isn’t just, because the worst offender might get a disapproving look, while some schlub who fucked up the paperwork gets fired and then beaten to death.
I am a creature who does not agree that your suggestion to :
is a simple or practical method of birth control for a hetero male who is engaging in a relationship with a hetero female.
Despite your “true facts” that some people find that a viable option - I don’t see your answer as a generic enough solution. Personally. But that’s just the creature I am. As we have agreed, we are different creatures.
I agree that some things do go away eventually online, but in this scenario, I doubt they’d rot fast enough to not cause a problem while it can be a problem. The links are likeliest to be fresh and easily available when a person is looking for a job, rather than 15 years later when the links finally rot.
This is spiraling into personal vitriol.
@jsroberts, we may not entirely agree here, but I always enjoy our discussions.
I’m out. Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful debate.
