If Mort Divine ruled the world

[rms]

the problem is sex is separated into pleasure and procreation. Until this is no longer separated, it clearly is not an action to create a child.

Her body her choice is fine, but her body, her choice, im financially responsible is another thing

 

[CiG]

It may not be an action intended to make a child, but it is an action that is absolutely intended to risk it.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

 

[rms]

Milo live at 9PM EST tonight if you probably want to see some feminists triggered at CU Boulder;

 

[Dak]

4chan antifa whining

Ironically it takes Antifas make me appreciate jackboots.

 

[Baroque]

I'm cut bro, I'm clearly a posterchild of the effects of sexual mutilation. Anecdotally, I have never had pleasurable physical sensation in upper glans penis other than a tiny strip of frenulum that remained after circumcision. You can find many reports of similar from men that were cut; usually done for reasons like phimosis, so it's not like there's a lot of choice, but there's still a significant loss in sensation.

Last I heard you knocked up your insane ex-wife like an idiot and were bitching about child support payments. Did daddy come home and start making big decisions, or is daddy just regretful that he was too uninvolved to prevent his ex from mutilating his son?

I'm circumcised and I feel plenty of pleasure. They must have done yours wrong. I won't share information about my son other than to say you're wrong.

 

[CiG]

If they did it wrong, that's just another point against it.

Milo live at 9PM EST tonight if you probably want to see some feminists triggered at CU Boulder;

I don't know if I can actually bear to watch him anymore, maybe someone will compile the funny parts so I can skip all the drivel.

 

[Dak]

I think this is probably an easier topic to debate than circumcision. Not sure how I feel, deserves to be critiqued more.

I realize that my radical academic side is going to show, but when I think of disadvantages for women in modern society I think primarily of cultural expectations that have serious consequences on how women "succeed" in the workplace. In short, there is still a very strong tendency in this country to see ambitious men as good role models, hard workers, successful, etc., while we tend to perceive ambitious women as incorrigible shrews, "nasty women," bad mothers, etc.

I'm sure that plenty of people will roll their eyes at this, but I think these kinds of cultural perceptions are as damaging as legal matters; they're just damaging in different ways. Women can certainly be successful in the workplace - to a point, and as long as they make certain concessions. So, to phrase this differently, a woman cannot be both a good mother and ambitious, or hard-working and kind. In more extreme cases, careers preclude families, politeness precludes promotion...

Many of these examples will be rejected as character attributes that can be altered, whereas legality is at play no matter what the characters involved are like (for the most part). But when it comes to issues of financial success and independence, I think that men have the (not so clear) advantage.

I'm not sure how this relates directly to my point. I do agree that you cannot "have it all" and that goes for both men and women.

I think this position depends entirely upon ones position in regards to abortion, as in whether you think abortion should even be filed under choice.

But assuming you're pro-abortion, I think it's still quite an easy discussion to have. Any time a man puts his penis inside of a woman, fundamentally he has made the choice to gamble on becoming a father.

I've noticed a lot lately that the basic fact that having sex presupposes the chance of pregnancy is basically forgotten by people. There really is no such thing as a surprise pregnancy if you really drill down to the act, unless of course you're so badly educated you don't know how babies are made.

So in my opinion, the man and woman do choose whether they have a child or not by having sex in the first place. After that, it's hard to argue that the man should have a say in whether an abortion is conducted if one takes the position that it's her body her choice.

This all becomes moot if both people are anti-abortion though and thus goes back to the choice being equal because both people know pre-sex that sex is the act of choosing to gamble on parenthood.

While it's true that sex in a vacuum presupposes the possibility, that's not the current contingent reality. Most contraceptive options are in female hands, and no one likes condoms and vasectomies are not nearly as simple an option as BC pills or a shot.

It's pretty hard to argue that a woman should have to carry a child she doesn't want, within a sociolegal environment that allows abortion. Why isn't it equally hard to argue a man should have to support a child he didn't want? We are talking about 9 months vs 26 years (now).

Morally I'm opposed to abortion except in the instances of incest/rape, which is like <1% of abortions in the US. However, I don't know the best approach in policy terms outside of the fact that I don't think it should be subsidized.

Her body her choice is fine, but her body, her choice, im financially responsible is another thing

Precisely. "Her choice, your responsibility" is bullshit. In addition, "Her choice, taxpayer responsibility" is also bullshit.

I'm circumcised and I feel plenty of pleasure.

Gotta agree here. I don't think I could stand more pleasure and I'm cut like the majority of my generation.

 

[Satanstoenail]

So Tom Araya posted a pretty lame photoshopped pic of Slayer with Trump giving the horns on instagram and social media has gone into meltdown:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/n...on-donald-trump-instagram-controversy-w463047

 

[CiG]

Saw that. Pretty pathetic reactions by most people.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not sure how this relates directly to my point. I do agree that you cannot "have it all" and that goes for both men and women.

It doesn't. Only the first line was in response to your comment. The rest was an explanation that I see privilege as extending beyond the legal system. The first two examples were legal examples.

 

[CiG]

Why isn't it equally hard to argue a man should have to support a child he didn't want? We are talking about 9 months vs 26 years (now).

Well, I come back to the understanding that entering into an act of sex is entering into the risk of pregnancy. So what I'm saying is, if you don't want children, don't have sex. If you do have sex, you have in some proportion decided to have a child.

 

[Einherjar86]

So what I'm saying is, if you don't want children, don't have sex. If you do have sex, you have in some proportion decided to have a child.

Tough to arrive at this kind of morally prescriptive attitude from the tendentious premise that sex is "for" childbirth. Sex is also for fun - neither one is primary.

 

[CiG]

Oh of course! But even when sex is for fun, sex is fun and feels good specifically to make breeding more attractive, you are still risking pregnancy and if you understand this simple biological fact, you are therefore consenting to such a risk.

 

[rms]

But walking outside my house increases my risk for nearly everything. Should I be responsible for every negative or unwanted action because I chose to leave the house today?

 

[EternalMetal]

No, but you are responsible for your own actions. Im with CIG on this one, if you dont take the proper precautions when choosing to have sex (ie birth control), you are taking a risk. Pregnancy is an avoidable scenario, only irresponsible people get someone accidentally knocked up.

 

[rms]

you act like the odds of pregnancy when having sex is likely let alone the majority possible outcome (above 50%) -- it's not

 

[arg]

Abortion is evil and women should be shamed for doing it.

But it should still be allowed because 1) government should stay out of people's bodies and 2) taxpayers will end up paying if a poor person's baby is not aborted

 

[Dak]

The point is that the risk in engaging in sex is 100% on the males, 0% on females (or at most a negligible amount). There's effectively zero risk for females currently. They hold veto power yet are not tasked with the responsibility that goes along with certain decisions.

Edit: To provide clarity, the term relevant to this situation is moral hazard.

 

[Baroque]

The point is that the risk in engaging in sex is 100% on the males, 0% on females (or at most a negligible amount). There's effectively zero risk for females currently. They hold veto power yet are not tasked with the responsibility that goes along with certain decisions.

Edit: To provide clarity, the term relevant to this situation is moral hazard.

I disagree that it's 100% on males, there are females who don't believe in abortion and will carry a child under any circumstance. There are many males who won't provide child support for those kids and the changes to the woman's body, the time investment etc etc. There's also pressure from family members/friends to not have an abortion. Since you used such general terms " the risk of engaging in sex" we could also talk about stds and other topics but I won't go there. I don't know what you mean by they're not tasked with a responsibility? They're tasked with either taking care of the child or arranging to have it aborted.

I do agree with the implication that's not stated here, that males should have some vote in the abortion decision. But who will provide the tiebreaking vote?