Two people get drunk and hook up. The poor woman is not responsible for her actions but the equally drunk man is responsible for his and has to accept the punishment of being a sex offender
I never understood this. I’ve been drunk at college parties and hooked up. I was definitely under the influence and not in my right state of mind. Sometimes, I was drunk and the girl wasn’t. I wasn’t sexually assaulted, though, since everything I did was still my decision, influence or not. If I were to cheat on my wife while drunk, I’d still be a cheater.
The whole Roe V Wade protests were nothing more than women wanting a way to avoid responsibility (pregnancy) of their actions. Meanwhile men have no choice but to accept responsibility and be financially accountable
Never understood this either. My sperm makes a baby as much as the woman’s egg. So why shouldn’t the decision to terminate a baby be on both parties? As in, if the man wants the baby but the woman doesn’t, then the abortion can’t happen but the man is legally required to take full care of the baby. And vice-versa if the woman wants to keep the baby but the man doesn’t. And abortion can only happen if both parties agree to it.
My wife feels the same way about both these issues, so this isn’t just me saying this because I’m a guy. What’s funny is that lots of guys feel this way but seem scared to voice it. It’s okay to disagree with women, you know? Haha.
Maybe you should reread what you quoted. I said assume what would make them happy, not what role they would play.
Except Tate himself is not very masculine. The first time I heard him I thought he was a homosexual. I’m still not unconvinced he isn’t. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Seriously, though, good counter-point. If the doctors deem the pregnancy too risky to the woman’s life, I see no reason why the woman shouldn’t be allowed to get an abortion without the man’s consent. Just like if the woman is raped, obviously she should be able to get an abortion without the man’s consent.
An alternative to both parties signing off on the abortion, how about financial abortion instead? Man doesn’t want baby, man doesn’t have to pay for it.
Men and women aren’t equal and never will be, so trying to legislate them to be equal will never work. Men are wallets and women are wombs; if she gets full autonomy of her womb, men should get autonomy of their wallets.
In a sense I agree with this because people with psychological acuity should be able to see if a man is going to be an irresponsible bum. Not that any woman deserves such a man and certainly doesn’t deserve physical abuse. But I’m supposed to believe a responsible or caring man is all of the sudden going to become the opposite?
If a woman sleeps with a bum/do-nothing or a man who does not want kids, she should know the consequences, I believe. Same goes for men who go for troublesome women.
The operative word here is “should”. If a woman has a baby with an irresponsible man, they BOTH should deal with the consequences, but in reality: she gets paid a la child support for her bad decisions. He has to pay for them (as he should, but i don’t believe this should be one sided).
Women have a hundred different forms of birth control at their disposal, ranging from IUD to Plan B. They have EVERY option to prevent pregnancy and even prevent carrying to term in many cases. Why couldn’t they exercise these options if they didnt want to be singularly burdened by the (subsidized) cost of raising a child?
Women want (and have) equal pay. So why can’t they pay to support their child? Pondersome…
I agree with you 100% BTW, but you and i know that both parties are not held equally responsible for their actions.
Some women don’t want to be singularly burdened by the cost of raising a child, but also really want a child. This seems to happen after the age of 30 typically. I think for many they think their time is running out. With that pressure, they settle for less than they would like.
So they should find some dudes wallet to tap so they can get what they want, while they get what they want?
Which still benefits them in the end, strangely. Perhaps if it wasn’t incentivised, they would have to pick ONE. Either bear the financial burden YOURSELF, or find a man who will stay.
There are literal courses women take that teach them how to swindle a baby out of rich dudes. Drake puts hot sauce in his condoms when he’s done with them because these hoes are literally trying to take him for his money. This shit is insanity.
The issue here is we know if this is how it was set up, some women would still end up single mothers. The children would suffer, and I don’t like that.
Unfortunately, some women end up with guys that seem good, but are not. The woman didn’t make a poor decision with the info she had at the time.
I remember that. I remember hearing about sports stars being told as rookies to take their used condoms with them after an encounter.
By forcing your child into a world where they will never know their father? Where they and everyone around them will know you only wanted the money, not the child?
I’ve been noticing this lately, the assumption that someone is logging into social media or watching something too much, Fox News or YT, for example. Why is that?
Does it take YT to inform men they are expected to earn money (eg, “men are wallets”)? I understood that, at like, twelve years old.
I’ve read this “you must be logging onto/watching” and “you must be…” directed at @Andrewgen_Receptors twice from two posters. He’s capable of speaking up for himself though, as he is intelligent, and I’m not saying that for flattery. But I’ve gotten it too.
I once was told I must watch Fox News when I hadn’t watched it since I was about thirteen years old in the 90’s aside from a few YT clips here and there with the gatekeeper/clown Tucker Carlson.
I was also once assumed to be a Trump supporter yet I have only voted once in my life about twelve years ago.
@Andrewgen_Receptors It appears that when these topics are discussed and unflattering remarks made about women generally (they don’t apply to all of them), there’s this knee jerk reaction to blame men, even though it’s understood that some or many men behave badly too. I suspect it’s to dismiss what the man said altogether, a deflection.
A bum/scumbag.
There have been child support bills priced so high that men cannot afford to pay them and wound up in jail. There was even a case I read about in which a man was malnourished because he was impoverished from such steep payments.
I believe this to be the case. Don’t debate the point, just find exceptions.
This doesn’t even get into the no fault divorces where the man still has to pay child support because he didn’t make his wife happy enough.
But yeah, sure @zecarlo, keep up the status quo where men have the overarching burden of everything while also upkeeping the narrative of the ‘patriarchy’ that legitimately oppresses men.
Why would a man care about this issue? I’m married. If my wife has another child, good. I’ll be happy. If I cheat and get another woman pregnant well, that’s on me if my wife divorces me and I end up paying child support to her and the other woman. I took the risk and should have been fully aware of the possible outcomes. I would have nothing to cry about.
Why should I care about some other man who engaged in risky behavior when he ends up facing the consequences he should have been aware of beforehand? Be a man and own your choices. If you want to change the rules just consider that you would only be making it easier for the deadbeats.
